Based on Patricia L. Hatcher's article "Identifyng Judith Hone, wife of John Armistead of Virginia ..." in the 2012 _American Ancestors Journal_, Gary Roberts includes a somewhat speculative royal line through Browne of Tolethorpe, co. Rutland, for these Virginia families. The line goes, in part, ....

Grace Pinchbeck = Christopher Browne of Tolethorpe

Francis Browne = Margaret Mathew

Joan Browne = William Hone

Thomas Hone = Jane Allen, etc.

This is based on the Visitation of Essex account of the Hone family, which states the connection to Browne of Tolethorpe, as well as the will of William Hone, in which is named his "brother" Anthony Browne. There is also a marriage record for William Hone and Joan Browne, as mentioned by Hatcher. The 1681 Visitation of Rutland supplies the earlier generations of Browne:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001517492&view=1up&seq=41&skin=2021&q1=%22anthony%20browne%22

An article in Notes & Queries from 1887 quotes the 1540/1 will of Francis Browne, father of Joan (Browne) Hone.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Notes_and_Queries/t7URAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22francis+browne%22+beatrix&pg=PA464&printsec=frontcover

This article mentions Francis' first wife Margaret Mathew, as well as a second wife, "Beatrys my Dame," named in the will. Beatrice was living as late as 36 Henry VII.

_Early Chancery Proceedings_, vol. III (? 1963), in the "Lists & Indexes" series reveals the probable birth identity of Beatrice:
[File 947, no. 51]

Francis BROWNE, esquire, and Beatrice, his wife, daughter of George Makworthe and late the wife of John, son of John Rowley, citizen and ironmonger of London v. Edward DUDLEY, and Jane his wife, executrix and late the wife of the said John [Rowley], the elder [concerning lands, goods, and money promised to Beatrice upon her first marriage].

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/sewMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+dudley%22+%22john+rowley%22&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover

Mackworth is another gentry family in co. Rutland.

It seems likely that the Joan Browne married Hone was a child of the first wife (Margaret Matthew), but there may have been children of Francis Browne by Beatrice (Mackworth) Rowley, as the N & Q article mentions that the son William may have been born 1539. Supposing Joan was married early (at say age 15), there is a slight chance she might be by Beatrice, not by Margaret. The chronology of the Rowleys of Rotherhithe should be checked.

Hatcher mentions that William Hone was seized at death (1575) of an inn and four adjoining shops in St. Botolphs without Aldergate. She also gives his father as John Hone, citizen of London (based on the Essex Vis. pedigree)..

An Inquisition post Mortem taken in August 1538 for a John Hone, tallowchandler of London, mentions a messuage or tenement and four shops adjoining in "the parish of St. Botolph without Aldrichegate."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitiones_Post_Mortem_R/amtKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+hone%22+brown&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover

This very likely gives more information on the father of William Hone (who married Joan Browne), including that his father John Hone left a will and had a widow Cecilia, who remarried before the date of the Inquisition to one John Baynton.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:10:24 PM UTC-4, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Based on Patricia L. Hatcher's article "Identifyng Judith Hone, wife of John Armistead of Virginia ..." in the 2012 _American Ancestors Journal_, Gary Roberts includes a somewhat speculative royal line through Browne of Tolethorpe, co. Rutland, for these Virginia families. The line goes, in part, ....
>
> Grace Pinchbeck = Christopher Browne of Tolethorpe
>
> Francis Browne = Margaret Mathew
>
> Joan Browne = William Hone
>
> Thomas Hone = Jane Allen, etc.
>
> This is based on the Visitation of Essex account of the Hone family, which states the connection to Browne of Tolethorpe, as well as the will of William Hone, in which is named his "brother" Anthony Browne. There is also a marriage record for William Hone and Joan Browne, as mentioned by Hatcher. The 1681 Visitation of Rutland supplies the earlier generations of Browne:
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001517492&view=1up&seq=41&skin=2021&q1=%22anthony%20browne%22
>
> An article in Notes & Queries from 1887 quotes the 1540/1 will of Francis Browne, father of Joan (Browne) Hone.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Notes_and_Queries/t7URAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22francis+browne%22+beatrix&pg=PA464&printsec=frontcover
>
> This article mentions Francis' first wife Margaret Mathew, as well as a second wife, "Beatrys my Dame," named in the will. Beatrice was living as late as 36 Henry VII.
>
> _Early Chancery Proceedings_, vol. III (? 1963), in the "Lists & Indexes" series reveals the probable birth identity of Beatrice:
>
> [File 947, no. 51]
>
> Francis BROWNE, esquire, and Beatrice, his wife, daughter of George Makworthe and late the wife of John, son of John Rowley, citizen and ironmonger of London v. Edward DUDLEY, and Jane his wife, executrix and late the wife of the said John [Rowley], the elder [concerning lands, goods, and money promised to Beatrice upon her first marriage].
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/sewMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+dudley%22+%22john+rowley%22&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover
>
> Mackworth is another gentry family in co. Rutland.
>
> It seems likely that the Joan Browne married Hone was a child of the first wife (Margaret Matthew), but there may have been children of Francis Browne by Beatrice (Mackworth) Rowley, as the N & Q article mentions that the son William may have been born 1539. Supposing Joan was married early (at say age 15), there is a slight chance she might be by Beatrice, not by Margaret. The chronology of the Rowleys of Rotherhithe should be checked.
>
> Hatcher mentions that William Hone was seized at death (1575) of an inn and four adjoining shops in St. Botolphs without Aldergate. She also gives his father as John Hone, citizen of London (based on the Essex Vis. pedigree).
>
> An Inquisition post Mortem taken in August 1538 for a John Hone, tallowchandler of London, mentions a messuage or tenement and four shops adjoining in "the parish of St. Botolph without Aldrichegate."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitiones_Post_Mortem_R/amtKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+hone%22+brown&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover
>
> This very likely gives more information on the father of William Hone (who married Joan Browne), including that his father John Hone left a will and had a widow Cecilia, who remarried before the date of the Inquisition to one John Baynton.

.... Beatrice living as late as 36 HENRY VIII, not VII.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-4, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:10:24 PM UTC-4, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > Based on Patricia L. Hatcher's article "Identifyng Judith Hone, wife of John Armistead of Virginia ..." in the 2012 _American Ancestors Journal_, Gary Roberts includes a somewhat speculative royal line through Browne of Tolethorpe, co. Rutland, for these Virginia families. The line goes, in part, ...
> >
> > Grace Pinchbeck = Christopher Browne of Tolethorpe
> >
> > Francis Browne = Margaret Mathew
> >
> > Joan Browne = William Hone
> >
> > Thomas Hone = Jane Allen, etc.
> >
> > This is based on the Visitation of Essex account of the Hone family, which states the connection to Browne of Tolethorpe, as well as the will of William Hone, in which is named his "brother" Anthony Browne. There is also a marriage record for William Hone and Joan Browne, as mentioned by Hatcher.. The 1681 Visitation of Rutland supplies the earlier generations of Browne:
> >
> > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001517492&view=1up&seq=41&skin=2021&q1=%22anthony%20browne%22
> >
> > An article in Notes & Queries from 1887 quotes the 1540/1 will of Francis Browne, father of Joan (Browne) Hone.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Notes_and_Queries/t7URAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22francis+browne%22+beatrix&pg=PA464&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > This article mentions Francis' first wife Margaret Mathew, as well as a second wife, "Beatrys my Dame," named in the will. Beatrice was living as late as 36 Henry VII.
> >
> > _Early Chancery Proceedings_, vol. III (? 1963), in the "Lists & Indexes" series reveals the probable birth identity of Beatrice:
> >
> > [File 947, no. 51]
> >
> > Francis BROWNE, esquire, and Beatrice, his wife, daughter of George Makworthe and late the wife of John, son of John Rowley, citizen and ironmonger of London v. Edward DUDLEY, and Jane his wife, executrix and late the wife of the said John [Rowley], the elder [concerning lands, goods, and money promised to Beatrice upon her first marriage].
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/sewMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+dudley%22+%22john+rowley%22&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > Mackworth is another gentry family in co. Rutland.
> >
> > It seems likely that the Joan Browne married Hone was a child of the first wife (Margaret Matthew), but there may have been children of Francis Browne by Beatrice (Mackworth) Rowley, as the N & Q article mentions that the son William may have been born 1539. Supposing Joan was married early (at say age 15), there is a slight chance she might be by Beatrice, not by Margaret. The chronology of the Rowleys of Rotherhithe should be checked.
> >
> > Hatcher mentions that William Hone was seized at death (1575) of an inn and four adjoining shops in St. Botolphs without Aldergate. She also gives his father as John Hone, citizen of London (based on the Essex Vis. pedigree).
> >
> > An Inquisition post Mortem taken in August 1538 for a John Hone, tallowchandler of London, mentions a messuage or tenement and four shops adjoining in "the parish of St. Botolph without Aldrichegate."
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitiones_Post_Mortem_R/amtKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+hone%22+brown&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > This very likely gives more information on the father of William Hone (who married Joan Browne), including that his father John Hone left a will and had a widow Cecilia, who remarried before the date of the Inquisition to one John Baynton.
> ... Beatrice living as late as 36 HENRY VIII, not VII.

There is a marriage licence for Cecily, which gives her second husband's name a bit differently:

D. S. Chambers, _Faculty Office Registers, 1534-1549_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 141:

[1538, July 4] 5. Jo. Benton & Cecily Hone, of London. Disp. for marriage without banns, in any ch. 10s; 10s.

Thomas Hone and his brother John

Short title: Hone v Hone. Plaintiffs: John Hone LLD a master in chancery. Defendants:...
Reference: C 2/Eliz/H16/56
Description:
Short title: Hone v Hone.
Plaintiffs: John Hone LLD a master in chancery.
Defendants: Thomas Hone.
Subject: To recover arrears of rent. A farm called Gardens in the parish of Hornechurch [Hornchurch], Essex, held under a lease granted by Marcelyne Halles esq, who afterwards sold the reversion to William Hone deceased, plaintiff's father.
Document type: [Pleadings]
Date: Between 1558 and 1603
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

John Rowley and "Jane his wife"

Grantor: Thomas Wethirby and John Clerk of London, gentlemen Recipient: John Rowley of...
Reference: E 326/12418
Description:
Grantor: Thomas Wethirby and John Clerk of London, gentlemen
Recipient: John Rowley of Rotherhithe, ironmonger, and Janes, his wife
Place or Subject: Rotherhithe
County: Surrey
Date: 22 hen VIII
Date: 1530 Apr 22-1531 Apr 21
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

I didn't notice a year on yours
But this item gives a year-range for this document

Short title: Browne v Rowley. Plaintiffs: Francis Browne, esquire, and Beatrice, his...

Reference: C 1/605/41
Description:
Short title: Browne v Rowley.
Plaintiffs: Francis Browne, esquire, and Beatrice, his wife, late the wife of John Rowley the younger.
Defendants: John Rowley the elder, citizen and ironmonger of London.
Subject: Money and goods promised by defendant on his son's marriage to the said Beatrice, daughter and heir ofGeorge Makworth of Empingham, esquire.
London, Rutland.
4 documents
Date: 1529-1532
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:30:14 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't notice a year on yours
> But this item gives a year-range for this document
>
> Short title: Browne v Rowley. Plaintiffs: Francis Browne, esquire, and Beatrice, his...
>
> Reference: C 1/605/41
> Description:
> Short title: Browne v Rowley.
> Plaintiffs: Francis Browne, esquire, and Beatrice, his wife, late the wife of John Rowley the younger.
> Defendants: John Rowley the elder, citizen and ironmonger of London.
> Subject: Money and goods promised by defendant on his son's marriage to the said Beatrice, daughter and heir ofGeorge Makworth of Empingham, esquire..
> London, Rutland.
> 4 documents
> Date: 1529-1532
> Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Ok, Interesting, ... Francis Browne and Beatrice Mackworth could have been married as early as 1529, or even earlier. The Joan Brown-William Hone marriage record was in 1542, if I remember correctly. This is about on the cusp of possibility (as far as Beatrice being mother of Joan), if Joan married fairly early.

My record would have been dated later, as John Rowley the elder was then deceased, and the Brownes were suing his widow Jane (who remarried to Edward Dudley).

By the way, even though this document says that Beatrice is "daughter and HEIR" I don't think that could be the case. This George must apparently be that one who m Anne Sherard, and were the parents of Francis Mackworth who would clearly be their heir. Not beatrice.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 3:53:16 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> By the way, even though this document says that Beatrice is "daughter and HEIR" I don't think that could be the case. This George must apparently be that one who m Anne Sherard, and were the parents of Francis Mackworth who would clearly be their heir. Not beatrice.

I *WONDER* if there is some tiny tiny slight possibility that Francis Mackworth, the son was not yet born at the time that this marriage of Beatrice (the first marriage) was contracted and *so* at that time, her father being living, she might be called heir presumptive* and not actually the eventual heir....

Just tossing a page into the wind here.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:57:51 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 3:53:16 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > By the way, even though this document says that Beatrice is "daughter and HEIR" I don't think that could be the case. This George must apparently be that one who m Anne Sherard, and were the parents of Francis Mackworth who would clearly be their heir. Not beatrice.
> I *WONDER* if there is some tiny tiny slight possibility that Francis Mackworth, the son was not yet born at the time that this marriage of Beatrice (the first marriage) was contracted and *so* at that time, her father being living, she might be called heir presumptive* and not actually the eventual heir....
>
> Just tossing a page into the wind here.

A more elaborate chart, showing how the Tolethorpe branch related to the Stamford branch of Browne, with a bit more on the 2nd (Bedingfield) wife of Francis' father (notice she is supposedly ancestral to one John Browne, b. 1601, and went to New England).

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogies_of_the_Families_and_Descenda/_oc6AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22john+browne%22+dartford&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Based on Patricia L. Hatcher's article "Identifyng Judith Hone, wife of John Armistead of Virginia ..." in the 2012 _American Ancestors Journal_, Gary Roberts includes a somewhat speculative royal line through Browne of Tolethorpe, co. Rutland, for these Virginia families. The line goes, in part, ....

I don't dispute that Patricia L. Hatcher's article states that Judith Hone was the wife of John Armistead of Virginia. I tried to find that article to read before posting this messige, but I could not find a free way to read it.

Is there some primary source evidence that Coll. John Armistead of Middlesex County, Virginia was married to a Hone?

There is serious doubt that Judith's surname was Hone. There is an article printed in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. 7, No. 1 (July 1899), pages 17--23, entitled "Will of Christopher Robinson, 1693" which contain a complete printed copy of Christopher Robinson's Will in which he describes himself to be "of Middlesex, Virginia. A copy of this article can be viewed and downloaded with a free account at https://www.jstor.org, stable/4242219. In this Will, Christoper Robinson he says - "Iten. I give and bequeath to my loving brother Coll.. John Armestead and to my loving sister Mrs. Judith Armistead to each of them a ring of twenty shillings valulue for a remembrance of me." Later it says - "I ordaine and appoynt my loving brother Mr. John Robinson, my living brother in law Mr. John Robinson . . . to take upon them the Execution of this my will . . . ." From this Will it seem clear that Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead in January 1692/92, was the daughter of Christopher Robinson who was married to Coll. John Armistead was the brother-in-law to Christopher Robinson.

Cheers,

Bob Allen

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:44:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > Based on Patricia L. Hatcher's article "Identifyng Judith Hone, wife of John Armistead of Virginia ..." in the 2012 _American Ancestors Journal_, Gary Roberts includes a somewhat speculative royal line through Browne of Tolethorpe, co. Rutland, for these Virginia families. The line goes, in part, ...
> I don't dispute that Patricia L. Hatcher's article states that Judith Hone was the wife of John Armistead of Virginia. I tried to find that article to read before posting this messige, but I could not find a free way to read it.
>
> Is there some primary source evidence that Coll. John Armistead of Middlesex County, Virginia was married to a Hone?
>
> There is serious doubt that Judith's surname was Hone. There is an article printed in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. 7, No. 1 (July 1899), pages 17--23, entitled "Will of Christopher Robinson, 1693" which contain a complete printed copy of Christopher Robinson's Will in which he describes himself to be "of Middlesex, Virginia. A copy of this article can be viewed and downloaded with a free account at https://www.jstor.org, stable/4242219. In this Will, Christoper Robinson he says - "Iten. I give and bequeath to my loving brother Coll.. John Armestead and to my loving sister Mrs. Judith Armistead to each of them a ring of twenty shillings valulue for a remembrance of me." Later it says - "I ordaine and appoynt my loving brother Mr. John Robinson, my living brother in law Mr. John Robinson .. . . to take upon them the Execution of this my will . . . ." From this Will it seem clear that Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead in January 1692/92, was the daughter of Christopher Robinson who was married to Coll. John Armistead was the brother-in-law to Christopher Robinson.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob Allen

It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...

I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www.jstor..org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.

So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.

Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .

Cheers

Bob

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...
> I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www.jstor..org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.
>
> So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.
>
> Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob
Hi,

I misread the article on Christopher Robinson cited in my immediately preceding posting. Katherine (maiden name unknown) first married a Mr. Hone, then as widow Hone remarried Robert Beverley and then as widow Beverley remarried Christopher Robinson as his 2nd wife. Now I am uncertain whether Katherine (maiden name unknown), wife of a Mr. Hone, is the reason why the Hone surname got attributed to Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead. For the reason previously stated, I still believe that she was a blood sister to Christopher Robinson.

Cheers,

Bob

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:41:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...
> > I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.
> >
> > So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.
> >
> > Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bob
> Hi,
>
> I misread the article on Christopher Robinson cited in my immediately preceding posting. Katherine (maiden name unknown) first married a Mr. Hone, then as widow Hone remarried Robert Beverley and then as widow Beverley remarried Christopher Robinson as his 2nd wife. Now I am uncertain whether Katherine (maiden name unknown), wife of a Mr. Hone, is the reason why the Hone surname got attributed to Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead. For the reason previously stated, I still believe that she was a blood sister to Christopher Robinson.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob

P. L. Hatcher states that Katherine was a Hone by birth. Her marriage to Robt. Beverly happened before the deaths of both Theophilus Hones living in the area. Therefore, she could not be the widow of either. Hatcher concludes she is the daughter of the elder Theophilus Hone. Her child Theophilus Robinson was named after her own father.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:10:14 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:41:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > > It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ....
> > > I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.
> > >
> > > So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.
> > >
> > > Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Bob
> > Hi,
> >
> > I misread the article on Christopher Robinson cited in my immediately preceding posting. Katherine (maiden name unknown) first married a Mr. Hone, then as widow Hone remarried Robert Beverley and then as widow Beverley remarried Christopher Robinson as his 2nd wife. Now I am uncertain whether Katherine (maiden name unknown), wife of a Mr. Hone, is the reason why the Hone surname got attributed to Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead. For the reason previously stated, I still believe that she was a blood sister to Christopher Robinson.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bob
> P. L. Hatcher states that Katherine was a Hone by birth. Her marriage to Robt. Beverly happened before the deaths of both Theophilus Hones living in the area. Therefore, she could not be the widow of either. Hatcher concludes she is the daughter of the elder Theophilus Hone. Her child Theophilus Robinson was named after her own father.

I don't see how Katherine could be a Hone by brith. The Christ Church, Middlesex County, Virginia parish register records the marriage of Robert Beverley to MRS. Katherine Hone on March 28, 1679. You can see this record AFTER you sign on to familysearch.org at this web address: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V38F-641V?i=13&cat=374972.

I agree that this parish register is not the original. So there is room for an interpretation or transcription error in making this transcript of the parish register. But if she was either listed as "Mrs." or as "Madam" Katherine Hone in the original it is hard to argue that Hone was her maiden name, P. L. Hatcher's conclusion notwithstanding.

I admit that it is curious that she and Christopher Robinson named one of their children Theophilus.

My main interest is in Judy, wife of Coll. John Armistead and determining her maiden name which seems to me to be Robinson.

Cheers,

Bob

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 7:05:10 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:10:14 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:41:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...
> > > > I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www..jstor.org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.
> > > >
> > > > So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I misread the article on Christopher Robinson cited in my immediately preceding posting. Katherine (maiden name unknown) first married a Mr. Hone, then as widow Hone remarried Robert Beverley and then as widow Beverley remarried Christopher Robinson as his 2nd wife. Now I am uncertain whether Katherine (maiden name unknown), wife of a Mr. Hone, is the reason why the Hone surname got attributed to Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead. For the reason previously stated, I still believe that she was a blood sister to Christopher Robinson.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Bob
> > P. L. Hatcher states that Katherine was a Hone by birth. Her marriage to Robt. Beverly happened before the deaths of both Theophilus Hones living in the area. Therefore, she could not be the widow of either. Hatcher concludes she is the daughter of the elder Theophilus Hone. Her child Theophilus Robinson was named after her own father.
> I don't see how Katherine could be a Hone by brith. The Christ Church, Middlesex County, Virginia parish register records the marriage of Robert Beverley to MRS. Katherine Hone on March 28, 1679. You can see this record AFTER you sign on to familysearch.org at this web address: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V38F-641V?i=13&cat=374972.
>
> I agree that this parish register is not the original. So there is room for an interpretation or transcription error in making this transcript of the parish register. But if she was either listed as "Mrs." or as "Madam" Katherine Hone in the original it is hard to argue that Hone was her maiden name, P. L. Hatcher's conclusion notwithstanding.
>
> I admit that it is curious that she and Christopher Robinson named one of their children Theophilus.
>
> My main interest is in Judy, wife of Coll. John Armistead and determining her maiden name which seems to me to be Robinson.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob

"Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status."

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:48:21 AM UTC-4, JBrand wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 7:05:10 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:10:14 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:41:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > It could be that Chris Robinson's wife was an Armistead or a Hone ...
> > > > > I think I have the answer. "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog/4242934/stableticle can be viewed and downloaded for free at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242934 . In this article it says that Christopher Robinson (who wrote his Will in Middlesex County, Virginia in 1602/93 (see my previous message))first married Agatha, one of the daughter of Bertram Obert of Middlesex. She died on January 25, 1685/86. He married 2nd Madam Katherine Beverley, widow of Maj. Robert Beverley of Middlesex. It says that Katherine Beverley's maiden name was Hone and that she had married Robert Beverley in Gloucester County, Virginia on arch 28, 1679.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Judith, who was referred to as "my sister" in Christopher's Robinson's Will was almost certainly Christopher Robinson's blood sister. The only other explanation would be that Judith was a sister to Christopher's 2nd wife, Katherine Hone, widow of Robert Beverley, in which case it would be a big stretch for Christopher Robertson to call Judith's husband his "brother" in one instance and his "brother-in-law" in a 2nd instance in his will in which case one would wonder why Christopher would want to provide in his Will for a rememberance ring that would go specifically to Judith.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding my previous message, I gave a bad web address for the Will of Christopher Robinson. The correct address is: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242219 .
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I misread the article on Christopher Robinson cited in my immediately preceding posting. Katherine (maiden name unknown) first married a Mr. Hone, then as widow Hone remarried Robert Beverley and then as widow Beverley remarried Christopher Robinson as his 2nd wife. Now I am uncertain whether Katherine (maiden name unknown), wife of a Mr. Hone, is the reason why the Hone surname got attributed to Judith, wife of Coll. John Armistead. For the reason previously stated, I still believe that she was a blood sister to Christopher Robinson.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > P. L. Hatcher states that Katherine was a Hone by birth. Her marriage to Robt. Beverly happened before the deaths of both Theophilus Hones living in the area. Therefore, she could not be the widow of either. Hatcher concludes she is the daughter of the elder Theophilus Hone. Her child Theophilus Robinson was named after her own father.
> > I don't see how Katherine could be a Hone by brith. The Christ Church, Middlesex County, Virginia parish register records the marriage of Robert Beverley to MRS. Katherine Hone on March 28, 1679. You can see this record AFTER you sign on to familysearch.org at this web address: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V38F-641V?i=13&cat=374972.
> >
> > I agree that this parish register is not the original. So there is room for an interpretation or transcription error in making this transcript of the parish register. But if she was either listed as "Mrs." or as "Madam" Katherine Hone in the original it is hard to argue that Hone was her maiden name, P. L. Hatcher's conclusion notwithstanding.
> >
> > I admit that it is curious that she and Christopher Robinson named one of their children Theophilus.
> >
> > My main interest is in Judy, wife of Coll. John Armistead and determining her maiden name which seems to me to be Robinson.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bob
> "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status."

https://nutfieldgenealogy.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-can-that-be-mother-and-daughter-mrs.html

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:

> "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status." It forces me to accept that "Mrs." as used to describe Katherine Hone in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co, VA) in the record of her marriage to Major Robert Beverley in 1679 does not mean she was a married woman.

I am now persuaded that Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone. I am willing to accept that the "Mrs." designation for "Katherine Hone" in her 1679 marriage records to Major Robert Beverley in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co.., VA) does not necessarily mean that she was previously married. I could have been, and probably was a mere designation of social status.

The most persuasive record I found is the Robinson Family pedigree compiled by John Robinson, Doctor of Divinity, Bishop of Bristol, brother to Christopher Robinson of Rappahannock Co., VA, in 1711 that was published in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. XV (1908), pages 445-447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i392782 (can be downloaded for free). In that pedigree it says that this Christopher Robinson first married Agatha, daughter of Bertram Obert and second married Katherine, daughter of Theophilus Hone of Jamestown in Virginia. Bishop Robertson, the compiler of the pedigree, would have had personal knowledge of his brother, Christopher, and his spouses.

Also, Katherine has a child named Theophilus Robinson, baptized on January 1, 1690/91. It would be more likely that he was named after a Katherine's father, rather than former spouse. In addition it shows she was still of child bearing years in 1690. This suggests that Katherine was born no earlier than c. 1650. Assuming that Katherine was the widow of a Mr. Hone, it is not probable that she was married to Theophilius Hone, Sr., who death date is unknown (but could be before 1679) because Theophilus Hone Sr., was born c. 1630, a generation earlier than Katherine which would make Katherine an unlikely candidate to be his wife and she could not be the widow of Theophilus Hone, Jr., who died in 1686, six years after she married Major Robert Beverley.

So, if Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone, then Judith, wife of John Armistead, was Judith Hone. Major Robert Beverley in his 1686 Will refers to Col. John Armistead as his "brother" (actually husband of his sister-in-law, Judith (Hone) Armistead). Christopher Robinson in his 1692/93 Will refers to "loving Coll. John Armestead and to my loving sister [actually sister-in-law], Judith Armistead (a gift for a remembrance ring to each) and he appointed "my loving brother in law Coll. John Armistead" as a co-executor of the Will.

Cheers,

Bob

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:14:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
>
> > "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status." It forces me to accept that "Mrs." as used to describe Katherine Hone in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co, VA) in the record of her marriage to Major Robert Beverley in 1679 does not mean she was a married woman.
>
> I am now persuaded that Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone. I am willing to accept that the "Mrs." designation for "Katherine Hone" in her 1679 marriage records to Major Robert Beverley in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co.., VA) does not necessarily mean that she was previously married. I could have been, and probably was a mere designation of social status.
>
> The most persuasive record I found is the Robinson Family pedigree compiled by John Robinson, Doctor of Divinity, Bishop of Bristol, brother to Christopher Robinson of Rappahannock Co., VA, in 1711 that was published in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. XV (1908), pages 445-447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i392782 (can be downloaded for free). In that pedigree it says that this Christopher Robinson first married Agatha, daughter of Bertram Obert and second married Katherine, daughter of Theophilus Hone of Jamestown in Virginia. Bishop Robertson, the compiler of the pedigree, would have had personal knowledge of his brother, Christopher, and his spouses.
>
> Also, Katherine has a child named Theophilus Robinson, baptized on January 1, 1690/91. It would be more likely that he was named after a Katherine's father, rather than former spouse. In addition it shows she was still of child bearing years in 1690. This suggests that Katherine was born no earlier than c. 1650. Assuming that Katherine was the widow of a Mr. Hone, it is not probable that she was married to Theophilius Hone, Sr., who death date is unknown (but could be before 1679) because Theophilus Hone Sr., was born c. 1630, a generation earlier than Katherine which would make Katherine an unlikely candidate to be his wife and she could not be the widow of Theophilus Hone, Jr., who died in 1686, six years after she married Major Robert Beverley.
>
> So, if Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone, then Judith, wife of John Armistead, was Judith Hone. Major Robert Beverley in his 1686 Will refers to Col. John Armistead as his "brother" (actually husband of his sister-in-law, Judith (Hone) Armistead). Christopher Robinson in his 1692/93 Will refers to "loving Coll. John Armestead and to my loving sister [actually sister-in-law], Judith Armistead (a gift for a remembrance ring to each) and he appointed "my loving brother in law Coll. John Armistead" as a co-executor of the Will.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob

Congrats upon your 'reinvention of the wheel' -- this is all in Ms. Hatcher's article.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 5:29:36 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:14:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> >
> > > "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status." It forces me to accept that "Mrs." as used to describe Katherine Hone in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co, VA) in the record of her marriage to Major Robert Beverley in 1679 does not mean she was a married woman.
> >
> > I am now persuaded that Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone. I am willing to accept that the "Mrs." designation for "Katherine Hone" in her 1679 marriage records to Major Robert Beverley in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co.., VA) does not necessarily mean that she was previously married. I could have been, and probably was a mere designation of social status.
> >
> > The most persuasive record I found is the Robinson Family pedigree compiled by John Robinson, Doctor of Divinity, Bishop of Bristol, brother to Christopher Robinson of Rappahannock Co., VA, in 1711 that was published in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. XV (1908), pages 445-447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i392782 (can be downloaded for free). In that pedigree it says that this Christopher Robinson first married Agatha, daughter of Bertram Obert and second married Katherine, daughter of Theophilus Hone of Jamestown in Virginia. Bishop Robertson, the compiler of the pedigree, would have had personal knowledge of his brother, Christopher, and his spouses.
> >
> > Also, Katherine has a child named Theophilus Robinson, baptized on January 1, 1690/91. It would be more likely that he was named after a Katherine's father, rather than former spouse. In addition it shows she was still of child bearing years in 1690. This suggests that Katherine was born no earlier than c. 1650. Assuming that Katherine was the widow of a Mr. Hone, it is not probable that she was married to Theophilius Hone, Sr., who death date is unknown (but could be before 1679) because Theophilus Hone Sr., was born c. 1630, a generation earlier than Katherine which would make Katherine an unlikely candidate to be his wife and she could not be the widow of Theophilus Hone, Jr., who died in 1686, six years after she married Major Robert Beverley.
> >
> > So, if Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone, then Judith, wife of John Armistead, was Judith Hone. Major Robert Beverley in his 1686 Will refers to Col. John Armistead as his "brother" (actually husband of his sister-in-law, Judith (Hone) Armistead). Christopher Robinson in his 1692/93 Will refers to "loving Coll. John Armestead and to my loving sister [actually sister-in-law], Judith Armistead (a gift for a remembrance ring to each) and he appointed "my loving brother in law Coll. John Armistead" as a co-executor of the Will.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bob
> Congrats upon your 'reinvention of the wheel' -- this is all in Ms. Hatcher's article.

I was not attempting to announce to the world I had discovered something new. I was announcing to the group that I have been convinced that Katherine maiden surname was Hone (after all my posts saying that she seems to be the widow of of a Mr. Hone because of the "Mrs." designation in her marriage to Robert Beverley). Thanks for helping me reach this conclusion.

Cheers,

Bob Allen

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-6, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 5:29:36 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:14:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status." It forces me to accept that "Mrs.." as used to describe Katherine Hone in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co, VA) in the record of her marriage to Major Robert Beverley in 1679 does not mean she was a married woman.
> > >
> > > I am now persuaded that Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone.. I am willing to accept that the "Mrs." designation for "Katherine Hone" in her 1679 marriage records to Major Robert Beverley in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co.., VA) does not necessarily mean that she was previously married. I could have been, and probably was a mere designation of social status.
> > >
> > > The most persuasive record I found is the Robinson Family pedigree compiled by John Robinson, Doctor of Divinity, Bishop of Bristol, brother to Christopher Robinson of Rappahannock Co., VA, in 1711 that was published in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. XV (1908), pages 445-447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i392782 (can be downloaded for free). In that pedigree it says that this Christopher Robinson first married Agatha, daughter of Bertram Obert and second married Katherine, daughter of Theophilus Hone of Jamestown in Virginia. Bishop Robertson, the compiler of the pedigree, would have had personal knowledge of his brother, Christopher, and his spouses.
> > >
> > > Also, Katherine has a child named Theophilus Robinson, baptized on January 1, 1690/91. It would be more likely that he was named after a Katherine's father, rather than former spouse. In addition it shows she was still of child bearing years in 1690. This suggests that Katherine was born no earlier than c. 1650. Assuming that Katherine was the widow of a Mr. Hone, it is not probable that she was married to Theophilius Hone, Sr., who death date is unknown (but could be before 1679) because Theophilus Hone Sr., was born c. 1630, a generation earlier than Katherine which would make Katherine an unlikely candidate to be his wife and she could not be the widow of Theophilus Hone, Jr., who died in 1686, six years after she married Major Robert Beverley.
> > >
> > > So, if Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone, then Judith, wife of John Armistead, was Judith Hone. Major Robert Beverley in his 1686 Will refers to Col. John Armistead as his "brother" (actually husband of his sister-in-law, Judith (Hone) Armistead). Christopher Robinson in his 1692/93 Will refers to "loving Coll. John Armestead and to my loving sister [actually sister-in-law], Judith Armistead (a gift for a remembrance ring to each) and he appointed "my loving brother in law Coll. John Armistead" as a co-executor of the Will.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Bob
> > Congrats upon your 'reinvention of the wheel' -- this is all in Ms. Hatcher's article.
> I was not attempting to announce to the world I had discovered something new. I was announcing to the group that I have been convinced that Katherine maiden surname was Hone (after all my posts saying that she seems to be the widow of of a Mr. Hone because of the "Mrs." designation in her marriage to Robert Beverley). Thanks for helping me reach this conclusion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob Allen

Is this Theophilus Hone the same person as the son of Judith Aylmer of that name in vis Essex

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 1:10:05 PM UTC-6, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:25:03 PM UTC-6, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 5:29:36 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:14:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Mrs." concerns her social status and doesn't mean anything as a far as marriage (this was the 17th-century usage of "Mrs" or "Mistresss"). My ancestor John Cogswell married "Mrs." Margaret Gifford in 1675, but she was a maiden lady "of higher social status." It forces me to accept that "Mrs." as used to describe Katherine Hone in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co, VA) in the record of her marriage to Major Robert Beverley in 1679 does not mean she was a married woman.
> > > >
> > > > I am now persuaded that Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone. I am willing to accept that the "Mrs." designation for "Katherine Hone" in her 1679 marriage records to Major Robert Beverley in the Christ Church Parish Register (Middlesex Co.., VA) does not necessarily mean that she was previously married. I could have been, and probably was a mere designation of social status.
> > > >
> > > > The most persuasive record I found is the Robinson Family pedigree compiled by John Robinson, Doctor of Divinity, Bishop of Bristol, brother to Christopher Robinson of Rappahannock Co., VA, in 1711 that was published in "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography", Vol. XV (1908), pages 445-447. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i392782 (can be downloaded for free). In that pedigree it says that this Christopher Robinson first married Agatha, daughter of Bertram Obert and second married Katherine, daughter of Theophilus Hone of Jamestown in Virginia. Bishop Robertson, the compiler of the pedigree, would have had personal knowledge of his brother, Christopher, and his spouses.
> > > >
> > > > Also, Katherine has a child named Theophilus Robinson, baptized on January 1, 1690/91. It would be more likely that he was named after a Katherine's father, rather than former spouse. In addition it shows she was still of child bearing years in 1690. This suggests that Katherine was born no earlier than c. 1650. Assuming that Katherine was the widow of a Mr. Hone, it is not probable that she was married to Theophilius Hone, Sr., who death date is unknown (but could be before 1679) because Theophilus Hone Sr., was born c. 1630, a generation earlier than Katherine which would make Katherine an unlikely candidate to be his wife and she could not be the widow of Theophilus Hone, Jr., who died in 1686, six years after she married Major Robert Beverley.
> > > >
> > > > So, if Katherine was the daughter of Theophilus Hone, then Judith, wife of John Armistead, was Judith Hone. Major Robert Beverley in his 1686 Will refers to Col. John Armistead as his "brother" (actually husband of his sister-in-law, Judith (Hone) Armistead). Christopher Robinson in his 1692/93 Will refers to "loving Coll. John Armestead and to my loving sister [actually sister-in-law], Judith Armistead (a gift for a remembrance ring to each) and he appointed "my loving brother in law Coll. John Armistead" as a co-executor of the Will.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > Congrats upon your 'reinvention of the wheel' -- this is all in Ms. Hatcher's article.
> > I was not attempting to announce to the world I had discovered something new. I was announcing to the group that I have been convinced that Katherine maiden surname was Hone (after all my posts saying that she seems to be the widow of of a Mr. Hone because of the "Mrs." designation in her marriage to Robert Beverley). Thanks for helping me reach this conclusion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bob Allen
> Is this Theophilus Hone the same person as the son of Judith Aylmer of that name in vis Essex

Short title: Ryther v Hone. Plaintiffs: William RYTHER, great-grandson and heir of...
Ordering and viewing options

This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded.

You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you.

Book a visit Request a copy

Reference: C 1/1154/62-63
Description:

Short title: Ryther v Hone.

Plaintiffs: William RYTHER, great-grandson and heir of William Appuldorefeld.

Defendants: William HONE, gentleman, son and heir of John Hone, citizen and tallow-chandler of London.

Subject: One-third of rent of tenements in St Nicholas Shambles. London
Note: See C78/3/39.
Date: 1544 April 22 - 1547 Feb 15
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description

Short title: Humfrey v The Mayor of London. Plaintiffs: Henry Humfrey and Joan, his...
Ordering and viewing options

This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded.

You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you.

Book a visit Request a copy

Reference: C 1/828/2
Description:

Short title: Humfrey v The Mayor of London.

Plaintiffs: Henry Humfrey and Joan, his wife, daughter and heir of Nicholas Atwood.

Defendants: The mayor and sheriffs of London.

Subject: Action of debt by John Hone of London, tallow-chandler, to whom the said Joan was apprenticed in the craft of `shepstery,' and who occupies a messuage and land of hers in Berkhampstead. Certiorari. London, Hertfordshire
Date: 1533-1538

Short title: Stephynson v The Mayor of London. Plaintiffs: Hugh Stephynson of East...
Ordering and viewing options

This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded.

You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you.

Book a visit Request a copy

Reference: C 1/579/29
Description:

Short title: Stephynson v The Mayor of London.

Plaintiffs: Hugh Stephynson of East Greenwich.

Defendants: The mayor and sheriffs of London, John Hone of London, tallow-chandler, and William Curson, and Christian, his wife.

Subject: Arrests by the servants of Dr. Rawlyns, almoner to the Cardinal, on account of a decree of the said almoner in the Court of Requests concerning rent of a house in Welling, and at the suit of defendants. Certiorari and subpoena. London, Kent
Date: 1518-1529
Held by: The National Archives, Kew