There seems to be some oddity about this Catherine Foljambe

http://books.google.com/books?id=ofsUAAAAQAAJ&dq=Cuthbert%20Langton&lr&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q=Cuthbert%20Langton&f=true
Vis Nott, 1569 and 1614 by William Flower

http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n758/mode/1up
Linc. Ped. "second daughter" "born 1509"

FILE [no title] - ref. DD/FJ/4/7/6 - date: 21 June 1513
[from Scope and Content] Will of Godfrey Fulgeham, esq.,
"intending to go over the see with the kynges grace". Mentions wife
Katheryne, sons Jas. and Godfrey, ds. Bennette and Katheryne wife of
Thos. Nevyll, mother Bennet F., and brother Roger F.

It seems remarkable to me, that a girl supposedly born in 1509 would be described in 1513 (at age 3 or 4?) as the wife of Thomas Neville above.

That this 1513 document is that Godfrey whose mother was Benedicta Vernon is of no doubt. "Bennet" being a familiar form.

Thomas Neville of Holt, co Leic; Sheriff co Leic 1539 apparently is that one who died in 1569. However he is supposed to have married thirdly to Margaret Danvers *by* 1539

Clearly this reconstruction is impossible if Katherine is yet mentioned living in her fathers 1540 will

This is a very odd will

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/617257/?offset=0#page=185&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=Foljambe

I note in particular this strange phrasing "Bennet my daughter begotten of Joane Mansfield"
This strikes very well an idea that this particular Bennet was illegitimate
and her next sister Katherine mentioned here, as well "begotten as abovesaid" (i.e also of Joane Mansfield)

So I would venture that we are dealing with two distinct Benedictas and Katherines
One pair legitimate (and much older) off Catherine Leeke
The other illegitimate off this Joan Mansfield

Godfrey did outlive his wife by 12 years

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 11:44:24 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a very odd will
>
> https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/617257/?offset=0#page=185&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=Foljambe
>
> I note in particular this strange phrasing "Bennet my daughter begotten of Joane Mansfield"
> This strikes very well an idea that this particular Bennet was illegitimate
> and her next sister Katherine mentioned here, as well "begotten as abovesaid" (i.e also of Joane Mansfield)
>
> So I would venture that we are dealing with two distinct Benedictas and Katherines
> One pair legitimate (and much older) off Catherine Leeke
> The other illegitimate off this Joan Mansfield
>
> Godfrey did outlive his wife by 12 years
wjhons, when I first read the will, I realized I'd never seen this kind of wording. Went over it several times and came to same conclusion you did. Then, did some searching and found a book that cites this Sir Godfrey as the father of illegitimate children (but I couldn't access any other detail):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335914165_The_gentleman's_mistress_Illegitimate_relationships_and_children_1450-1640

Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will, or not necessarily? Maybe this mention appeared because the younger Katherine and Bennet were born after Sir Godfrey's wife's death?

I think the contract was kept, as my Thomas FitzRandolph mentions his deceased wife Katherine in his will, and this union appears in the Fitz-Randolfe pedigree in Visitation of Nottingham, 1569 and 1614.

Was Sir Godfrey's other Katherine married to a Neville? Was Joan Mansfield likely a gentlewoman, or not necessarily?

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 5:47:52 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 11:44:24 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This is a very odd will
> >
> > https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/617257/?offset=0#page=185&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=Foljambe
> >
> > I note in particular this strange phrasing "Bennet my daughter begotten of Joane Mansfield"
> > This strikes very well an idea that this particular Bennet was illegitimate
> > and her next sister Katherine mentioned here, as well "begotten as abovesaid" (i.e also of Joane Mansfield)
> >
> > So I would venture that we are dealing with two distinct Benedictas and Katherines
> > One pair legitimate (and much older) off Catherine Leeke
> > The other illegitimate off this Joan Mansfield
> >
> > Godfrey did outlive his wife by 12 years
> wjhons, when I first read the will, I realized I'd never seen this kind of wording. Went over it several times and came to same conclusion you did. Then, did some searching and found a book that cites this Sir Godfrey as the father of illegitimate children (but I couldn't access any other detail):
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335914165_The_gentleman's_mistress_Illegitimate_relationships_and_children_1450-1640
>
> Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will, or not necessarily? Maybe this mention appeared because the younger Katherine and Bennet were born after Sir Godfrey's wife's death?
>
> I think the contract was kept, as my Thomas FitzRandolph mentions his deceased wife Katherine in his will, and this union appears in the Fitz-Randolfe pedigree in Visitation of Nottingham, 1569 and 1614.
>
> Was Sir Godfrey's other Katherine married to a Neville? Was Joan Mansfield likely a gentlewoman, or not necessarily?

I would say some will mention children clearly illegitimate.
I've not seen a case where the mother is named like this however

"Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"

Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.

Unusual, no.

Chris

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
>
> Unusual, no.
>
> Chris

" never endeared to the father"

I realise that I've been sexist here!

I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.

Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.

Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:

"I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"

William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.

Chris

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> > Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
> >
> > Unusual, no.
> >
> > Chris
> " never endeared to the father"
>
>
> I realise that I've been sexist here!
>
> I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify.. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.
>
> Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.
>
> Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:
>
> "I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"
>
>
> William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.
>
>
> Chris
Chris, thank you, as usual. Great insight from your example. I guess Sir Godfrey Foljambe was being quite magnanimous -- and I have him to thank for knowing what I know. I'm gaining more appreciation for the challenges that women faced in those times. New hashtag...#MedievalLadiesUnite...#MeTooEarlyModern...

I'd love to find the marriage contract for Thomas FitzRandolph and Katherine Foljambe, if one exists. Would a marriage contract have been a record of an ecclesiastical court? Were marriage contracts unlike records such as parish registers and probate...a different animal, which might or might not have been kept, and there's no telling where it might be, if it exists at all?

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 16:35:09 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> > > Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
> > >
> > > Unusual, no.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > " never endeared to the father"
> >
> >
> > I realise that I've been sexist here!
> >
> > I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.
> >
> > Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.
> >
> > Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:
> >
> > "I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"
> >
> >
> > William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> Chris, thank you, as usual. Great insight from your example. I guess Sir Godfrey Foljambe was being quite magnanimous -- and I have him to thank for knowing what I know. I'm gaining more appreciation for the challenges that women faced in those times. New hashtag...#MedievalLadiesUnite...#MeTooEarlyModern...
>
> I'd love to find the marriage contract for Thomas FitzRandolph and Katherine Foljambe, if one exists. Would a marriage contract have been a record of an ecclesiastical court? Were marriage contracts unlike records such as parish registers and probate...a different animal, which might or might not have been kept, and there's no telling where it might be, if it exists at all?

I'm not aware that marriage contracts were kept in ecclesiastical courts, but am quite happy to be proved wrong. Not my area of knowledge.

The only contracts that I've seen have been from private records.

Chris

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> > Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
> >
> > Unusual, no.
> >
> > Chris
> " never endeared to the father"
>
>
> I realise that I've been sexist here!
>
> I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify.. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.
>
> Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.
>
> Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:
>
> "I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"
>
>
> William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.
>
>
> Chris
Maybe the father would also provide for his illegitimate child if he retained fond memories of the mother but for some reason hadn't married her? I'm thinking of Cardinal Henry Beaufort for whom marriage was impossible if he had already taken holy orders or planned to do so and advance in the Church.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:12:54 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> > > Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
> > >
> > > Unusual, no.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > " never endeared to the father"
> >
> >
> > I realise that I've been sexist here!
> >
> > I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.
> >
> > Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.
> >
> > Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:
> >
> > "I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"
> >
> >
> > William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> Maybe the father would also provide for his illegitimate child if he retained fond memories of the mother but for some reason hadn't married her? I'm thinking of Cardinal Henry Beaufort for whom marriage was impossible if he had already taken holy orders or planned to do so and advance in the Church.
Cindy, that seems like a good possibility to me.

Now I'm remembering...I don't think Sir Godfrey actually left anything to Katherine, his illegitimate daughter who married Thomas FitzRandolph, in the will; I think she was mentioned only because he put her marriage arrangements in the charge of his son, her half-brother, James. Maybe, as Chris said above, he had provided well for her during his life.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:12:54 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 11:44:36 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > > "Was it unusual for testators to mention their illegitimate children in a will,"
> > > > Look at it this way. An illegitimate child was not going to get any automatic inheritance. If the testator was emotionally close, then the child/adult would be provided for during the testator's life or by will. If the child was the result of a momentary romp in a haystack, and never endeared to the father, then it was unlikely to get much if anything. That's life.
> > > >
> > > > Unusual, no.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > " never endeared to the father"
> > >
> > >
> > > I realise that I've been sexist here!
> > >
> > > I can give an example of a woman protecting her illegitimate child, though it's at the very end of the Medieval-Early Modern period that you specify. This was in the 1681 will of Elizabeth Bowman of Lingcroft in Lamplugh. Her husband had died in 1665, and I imagine as a wealthy and powerful widow she was comforted. Her illegitimate daughter Hannah Dixon al Bowman was provided for in her will, and eventually married reasonably well.
> > >
> > > Going back three generations in her husband's family, Henry Bowman (died 1617) had married Dorothy Woodhall, niece of Edmund Grindal, future Archibishop of Canterbury.
> > >
> > > Henry and Dorothy had a son William born before marriage in 1566, so illegitimate. Not only is that clear from BMD records, but Henry wrote in his will that:
> > >
> > > "I give unto my son William that which is in his hand in full consideration of his child part & portion which they & any of them shall claim & challenge after my death"
> > >
> > >
> > > William, as well as having other legacies, was apparitor of the local ecclesiastical court.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > Maybe the father would also provide for his illegitimate child if he retained fond memories of the mother but for some reason hadn't married her? I'm thinking of Cardinal Henry Beaufort for whom marriage was impossible if he had already taken holy orders or planned to do so and advance in the Church.
> Cindy, that seems like a good possibility to me.
>
> Now I'm remembering...I don't think Sir Godfrey actually left anything to Katherine, his illegitimate daughter who married Thomas FitzRandolph, in the will; I think she was mentioned only because he put her marriage arrangements in the charge of his son, her half-brother, James. Maybe, as Chris said above, he had provided well for her during his life.
Certainly a possibility!

~Cindy