On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 6:12:50 PM UTC-5, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:28:19 AM UTC-7, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Nathan,
> >
> > Many thanks for your efforts and the support of your sponsors.
> >
> > Besides Kirk & Hollick's theory of Katherine Dynewell being a Fulnetby and Anne's mother, did you find any other hypothetical scenarios that fit the conditions of the Archbishop's biographies?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg Cooke (another desc of Th. Bradbury)
> Hi Greg,
>
> That's a great question. My approach to tackle that question was to identify all the Dynewells and Fulnetbys I could find in the period 1460 to 1540.. I admit, I was skeptical at first of Kirk and Hollick's conclusion that both surnames were on the verge of extinction at that time. My findings, however, agree with their conclusion - John Fulnetby of Fulnetby, esq. (d. 1524) was one of the last bearers of his ancient surname. Most of the Fulnetbys I could find in England over the next few generations (on Ancestry, findmypast, FamilySearch, Bernau Index) are recognizable as his descendants. In the period 1440s-1450s, there were three men named John Fulnetby who lived at Fulnetby or Rand parish in Lincolnshire:
> 1. John Fulnetby of Fulnetby, esq., dead by 1442, administratrix Joan Fulnetby sued someone in Common Pleas in 1442.
> 2. John Fulnetby of Fulnetby, dead by 1455, executors Elizabeth Fulnetby, John Sotell, and Philip Fulnetby sued someone in Common Pleas in 1455.
> 3. John Fulnetby, requested burial in Rand Church, whose will, written in 1456, was registered in the Bishop's Register. Wife Johan. Son: John.
>
> I couldn't determine who all of these men's descendants are. One could be a father to John Fulnetby of Fulnetby, esq. (d. 1524). Another could be his grandfather, but who was the third? Knowing the wealth of records that survive in Lincoln Diocese, I was surprised to learn so few pre-1500 loose original wills or registered will books survive. The will of the third John in the preceding list only survives because it was copied into the Bishop's official register. Most of the content in bishop's registers is not probate in nature.
>
> There are scattered Fulnetby references in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Leicestershire, London, and Gloucestershire in the late 1400s, but only the Lincolnshire family seems to have survived into the mid 1500s. Some members of the Lincolnshire family had migrated elsewhere by that time. These other early Fulnetby families didn't leave enough of a trace behind to reconstruct their lineages.
>
> We would have a clearer picture of how many Fulnetbys and Dynewells there were once the 1523-25 lay subsidies are published for all of the country. Lists do not survive for Rand parish (which includes Fulnetby) according to the E179 Database. Lay subsidies for all of Lincolnshire have not been published yet, as far as I could tell.
>
> It had been theorized that records of the Dynewells were lost citing late survival of parish registers at Scartho, outside of Grimsby. Lay subsidies there in the 1520s and 1540s, however, record no one of the surname. It's expected that they should have had sufficient property to meet the threshold of those very inclusive taxes.
>
> The only other Dynewells I could pick up were tradesmen who lived at Barton and Burrow upon Humber in the period 1550-1640. The surname then disappears.
>
> I didn't look into the Goodrich family. The connection Kirk and Hollick cited seemed very plausible to me.
>
> Nathan
>
> Nathan

There is a fuller transcription of the will of Henry Whitgift, the Archbishop's father, than given by J. B. Threlfall at ...

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Society_of_Antiquarie/X8JYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=henry+whitegift&pg=PA376&printsec=frontcover