On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 3:57:38 AM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> When I suggested that Waters may not have examined the pedigree, I did so on the basis of his numerous erroneous claims about it. To understand how fabulously mistaken he was, you must read our analysis of his claims – or examine the records yourself.

Group,

Why is it a mistake to say, “I am only interested in the single question of whether Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, was the wife of John Weston of Lichfield?” This approach is a mistake because the big picture, a review of all the evidence, reveals important insights about this very question.

1. If a person decides that Cecily Neville is a fiction based on the writings of Waters, then it matters if Waters made a number of statements about the pedigree that are demonstrably and spectacularly false. In fact, we believe the scope of the erroneous statements by Waters about the pedigree impeach his credibility as a source regarding any aspect of the document.

2. If, as we demonstrate in our book, Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston were brothers – in contrast to the claims by Waters, then the family’s meteoric ascendancy must be explained. The rise of any single individual during this period of social unrest might be explained by intelligence, determination, or mere good fortune. Yet, in only four generations, John Weston of Lichfield’s descendants and their spouses included seven earls, nine knights, a head of England’s treasury, a justice of England’s supreme court for matters of equity, a justice of England’s supreme court for matters of common law, two heads of Ireland’s treasury, a head of Ireland’s judiciary, and a head of Ireland’s legislative affairs. See our book for a chart showing the names and relations among these individuals. What caused the family’s sudden ascendancy?

3. With the false statements by Waters about the pedigree dispensed with – not willy-nilly, but based on a careful assessment of each, then a fair review of the contemporary records we present in our book leads to the inevitable conclusion that Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, was the wife of John Weston of Lichfield, and the mother of Justice Weston, Chancellor Weston, and their siblings.

Having reached this conclusion, several questions come to mind. Why did Waters falsely claim that Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston were brothers? Was it to dispense with the obvious difficulty for his false assertion regarding their mother? Did he realize that if Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston were brothers, he would have difficulty asserting that their mother was not Cecily Neville? Once again, quoting Rabbit's answer to Winnie the Pooh, mmm, maybe! 😊 I love that Pooh Bear.

Shawn

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 6:36:25 AM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> According to ODNB John Weston's son and heir Robert was born in or
> before 1522 - how is it established that the marriage of his parents had
> taken place 15 years before 1526? Do this mean it was contracted ca
> 1511, or consummated by around then? If it was perhaps not consummated
> until around 1521, then how is it proven that Cecily could not have been
> a maternal half-sister of Ralph Nevill?

Hi Peter

Thank you for your good question. We provide contemporary evidence that Edmund Weston, Archdeacon of Lewes; Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas; Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland; James Weston of Lichfield; and Christopher Weston, Burgess of Tamworth, were brothers -- just as presented in the Weston pedigree. Edmund completed a B.C.L. at Oxford on 19 Nov 1532, Richard completed a B.C.L. at Oxford on 17 Feb 1532/3, and Robert completed a B.C.L at Oxford on 17 Feb 1538. These records, and other life events which we discuss in our book, suggest that Edmund was born say about 1511, Richard was born say about 1513, and Robert was born say about 1515 (or perhaps a small number of years later). This information, and more, can be found in the genealogical summary of our book. We believe all the evidence suggests Cecily Neville married John Weston of Lichfield in about 1510. Again based on multiple life events, we estimate Cecily Neville's birth year as about 1493, when her father, Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, was married to Edith Sandys.

Shawn

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 2:09:14 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> Once again, quoting Rabbit's answer to Winnie the Pooh, mmm, maybe! 😊 I love that Pooh Bear.

Group,

In 1878, Waters wrote in a footnote: “The doubts expressed in the text respecting Segar’s statement, that John Weston of Lichfield was the father of Richard Weston the Judge, apply with still greater force to the statement that his mother was Lady Cecily Nevill, the sister of Ralph Earl of Westmoreland. Cecily Weston does not occur in any of the pedigrees or will of the Nevills, and her supposed sons never allude in any way to their illustrious connexions. The whole story seems to depend on a deed, abstracted by Segar, ‘Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat. Lichfield 15 Jul, 18 Hen. VIII.’ (15) But even if this deed be genuine, it is in the absence of all other authorities a very unsatisfactory proof of Cecily’s parentage.” See Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:110.

In our book (Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/), we demonstrate, by examining and illustrating Weston pedigree supporting documents as well as independent records, that Waters was in error with regard to his above remarks, as well as other statements, about the Weston pedigree.

On pages 16-19 of our book, we demonstrate that three fundamental statements by Waters about the Weston pedigree were erroneous.

On pages 31-62 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that Justice Weston was not a brother of Chancellor Weston was erroneous – they were brothers.

On pages 64-114 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was not Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, was erroneous – she was their mother.

On pages 113-114 of our book, we summarize our discoveries about Cecily Neville, as presented on pages 64-114 of our book, as follows.

“Our examination of Weston pedigree documents and independent records relating to the identity of the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston led to eight discoveries.

1. The immediate descendants of John Weston of Lichfield soared to the heights of society in a manner consistent with the influence of a recent ancestor from the aristocracy.

2. Neighbors, friends, and the public at large accepted, and did not object to, the Weston pedigree proclamation that the wife of John Weston of Lichfield was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

3. John Weston of Lichfield and his descendants held the lease of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist Manor from the guardian of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, or from the guardian’s son, Henry Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford, brother-in-law of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

4. Sons of John Weston of Lichfield owned property that previously had been inherited by members of the family of Isabel Booth, mother of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville.

5. The tomb of a son, grandson, and great-granddaughter of John Weston of Lichfield displayed Neville arms impaling Weston arms — marital arms of a Weston male and his Neville wife.

6. John Weston of Rugeley deeded land to “John Weston, Junior, my son, and Cecily, his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland.”

7. Simon Weston, Knt., of Lichfield, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

8. Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham, son-in-law of James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his wife’s great-grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

We found some of these discoveries to be suggestive, and others to be persuasive; however, as we considered this whole body of evidence, the effect on our thinking was decisive. Every detail points to a single conclusion. The mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.”

Those who wish to review our presentation, discussion, and illustration of documents that led to discoveries 1-8 above, should see pages 64-114 of our book.

Shawn

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 2:09:14 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> Once again, quoting Rabbit's answer to Winnie the Pooh, mmm, maybe! 😊 I love that Pooh Bear.

Group,

In 1878, Waters wrote in a footnote: “The doubts expressed in the text respecting Segar’s statement, that John Weston of Lichfield was the father of Richard Weston the Judge, apply with still greater force to the statement that his mother was Lady Cecily Nevill, the sister of Ralph Earl of Westmoreland. Cecily Weston does not occur in any of the pedigrees or will of the Nevills, and her supposed sons never allude in any way to their illustrious connexions. The whole story seems to depend on a deed, abstracted by Segar, ‘Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat. Lichfield 15 Jul, 18 Hen. VIII.’ (15) But even if this deed be genuine, it is in the absence of all other authorities a very unsatisfactory proof of Cecily’s parentage.” See Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:110.

In our book (Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/), we demonstrate, by examining and illustrating Weston pedigree supporting documents as well as independent records, that Waters was in error with regard to his above remarks, as well as other statements, about the Weston pedigree.

On pages 16-19 of our book, we demonstrate that three fundamental statements by Waters about the Weston pedigree were erroneous.

On pages 31-62 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that Justice Weston was not a brother of Chancellor Weston was erroneous – they were brothers.

On pages 64-114 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was not Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, was erroneous – she was their mother.

On pages 113-114 of our book, we summarize our discoveries about Cecily Neville, as presented on pages 64-114 of our book, as follows.

“Our examination of Weston pedigree documents and independent records relating to the identity of the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston led to eight discoveries.

1. The immediate descendants of John Weston of Lichfield soared to the heights of society in a manner consistent with the influence of a recent ancestor from the aristocracy.

2. Neighbors, friends, and the public at large accepted, and did not object to, the Weston pedigree proclamation that the wife of John Weston of Lichfield was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

3. John Weston of Lichfield and his descendants held the lease of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist Manor from the guardian of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, or from the guardian’s son and brother-in-law of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

4. Sons of John Weston of Lichfield owned property that previously had been inherited by members of the family of Isabel Booth, mother of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville.

5. The tomb of a son, grandson, and great-granddaughter of John Weston of Lichfield displayed Neville arms impaling Weston arms — marital arms of a Weston male and his Neville wife.

6. John Weston of Rugeley deeded land to “John Weston, Junior, my son, and Cecily, his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland.”

7. Simon Weston, Knt., of Lichfield, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

8. Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham, son-in-law of James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his wife’s great-grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

We found some of these discoveries to be suggestive, and others to be persuasive; however, as we considered this whole body of evidence, the effect on our thinking was decisive. Every detail points to a single conclusion. The mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.”

Those who wish to review our presentation, discussion, and illustration of documents that led to discoveries 1-8 above, should see pages 64-114 of our book.

Shawn

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 10:48:34 AM UTC-5, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 2:09:14 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> > Once again, quoting Rabbit's answer to Winnie the Pooh, mmm, maybe! 😊 I love that Pooh Bear.
> Group,
>
> In 1878, Waters wrote in a footnote: “The doubts expressed in the text respecting Segar’s statement, that John Weston of Lichfield was the father of Richard Weston the Judge, apply with still greater force to the statement that his mother was Lady Cecily Nevill, the sister of Ralph Earl of Westmoreland. Cecily Weston does not occur in any of the pedigrees or will of the Nevills, and her supposed sons never allude in any way to their illustrious connexions. The whole story seems to depend on a deed, abstracted by Segar, ‘Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat. Lichfield 15 Jul, 18 Hen. VIII.’ (15) But even if this deed be genuine, it is in the absence of all other authorities a very unsatisfactory proof of Cecily’s parentage.” See Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:110.
>
> In our book (Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/), we demonstrate, by examining and illustrating Weston pedigree supporting documents as well as independent records, that Waters was in error with regard to his above remarks, as well as other statements, about the Weston pedigree.
>
> On pages 16-19 of our book, we demonstrate that three fundamental statements by Waters about the Weston pedigree were erroneous.
>
> On pages 31-62 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that Justice Weston was not a brother of Chancellor Weston was erroneous – they were brothers.
>
> On pages 64-114 of our book, we demonstrate that the statement by Waters that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was not Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, was erroneous – she was their mother.
>
> On pages 113-114 of our book, we summarize our discoveries about Cecily Neville, as presented on pages 64-114 of our book, as follows.
>
> “Our examination of Weston pedigree documents and independent records relating to the identity of the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston led to eight discoveries.
>
> 1. The immediate descendants of John Weston of Lichfield soared to the heights of society in a manner consistent with the influence of a recent ancestor from the aristocracy.
>
> 2. Neighbors, friends, and the public at large accepted, and did not object to, the Weston pedigree proclamation that the wife of John Weston of Lichfield was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland..
>
> 3. John Weston of Lichfield and his descendants held the lease of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist Manor from the guardian of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, or from the guardian’s son and brother-in-law of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.
>
> 4. Sons of John Weston of Lichfield owned property that previously had been inherited by members of the family of Isabel Booth, mother of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville.
>
> 5. The tomb of a son, grandson, and great-granddaughter of John Weston of Lichfield displayed Neville arms impaling Weston arms — marital arms of a Weston male and his Neville wife.
>
> 6. John Weston of Rugeley deeded land to “John Weston, Junior, my son, and Cecily, his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland.”
>
> 7. Simon Weston, Knt., of Lichfield, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.
>
> 8. Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham, son-in-law of James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, wrote that his wife’s great-grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.
>
> We found some of these discoveries to be suggestive, and others to be persuasive; however, as we considered this whole body of evidence, the effect on our thinking was decisive. Every detail points to a single conclusion. The mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.”
>
> Those who wish to review our presentation, discussion, and illustration of documents that led to discoveries 1-8 above, should see pages 64-114 of our book.
>
> Shawn
A well researched, presented, and sourced book that was certainly worth the small amount of money I spent to resolve the issue in my own mind. Thanks to both you and your wife for all of your efforts Shawn. Doubtless the hours of time spent in dialogue/debate here are more costly at even a reasonable hourly rate than that which I spent on your worthy tome.

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 8:26:14 PM UTC-5, ache...@gmail.com wrote:
> A well researched, presented, and sourced book that was certainly worth the small amount of money I spent to resolve the issue in my own mind. Thanks to both you and your wife for all of your efforts Shawn. Doubtless the hours of time spent in dialogue/debate here are more costly at even a reasonable hourly rate than that which I spent on your worthy tome.

Thank you for your kind words. Lois and I are glad that our work was helpful to you in your research; and we appreciate your encouragement. Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-5, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 8:26:14 PM UTC-5, ache...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A well researched, presented, and sourced book that was certainly worth the small amount of money I spent to resolve the issue in my own mind. Thanks to both you and your wife for all of your efforts Shawn. Doubtless the hours of time spent in dialogue/debate here are more costly at even a reasonable hourly rate than that which I spent on your worthy tome.
> Thank you for your kind words. Lois and I are glad that our work was helpful to you in your research; and we appreciate your encouragement. Shawn

Shawn, Thank you to you and Lois for all your work. I'm relatively new here and have been following this thread with great interest. Am just starting to explore medieval genealogy, and have purchased your book. This reading will significantly enhance my understanding of gathering and evaluating evidence and making a case, and I'm looking forward to learning more about the Westons and the families of the earls of Westmorland. Congratulations! Jinny

Reviewing again the older thread on this same subject, a few points seem damning.

One, as has been beaten many times, is that this Cecily, and even her descendants, are not mentioned in any of the wills of this family to which she is said to belong.

Even more so, as, during the time the 4th Earl remained childless, she and her supposed sister, would have been co-heiresses to the immense fortune of the Westmoreland lands. Immense. Not slight. Enormous.

That she might be married off to some nobody, is not credible.

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:01:07 PM UTC-5, ps bumppo wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:24:50 PM UTC-5, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 11:08:22 AM UTC-5, Andrew Z wrote:
> > > I completely agree with you that "eagle displayed sable" was associated with the Weston family since at least Sir Hamo de Weston (d.1189); it'd be great to understand (if that's even possible) which family branches adopted which arms....
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thank you again for your kind words and your good questions and comments. My wife and I are grateful to you.
> >
> > To once more summarize, as you mentioned, your source, on page 508, notes: “The earliest armorial bearings of the Westons of Weston-under-Lyzard was an eagle displayed, and seals prove that this eagle was frequently regardant.” And, as I mentioned in my earlier note, the Weston pedigree includes numerous sketches of seals on family documents bearing arms argent an eagle displayed sable. These seals, with their arms, illustrate that the Weston families of Rugeley and Lichfield were entitled to, and did, display the arms argent an eagle displayed sable from the time of Sir Hamo de Weston, generation after generation, to the time of the publication of the Weston pedigree. This was not a recent development connected with the publication of the Weston pedigree.
> >
> > In light of this, one wonders how Waters could have written: “[Justice Weston] bore Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference…. They are wholly different from the arms of the Westons of Rugeley, which were Or, an eagle displayed regardant sable; but it is significant that when the pedigree of 1632 was compiled, Lord Weston assumed the coat of the eagle, and in the same year Segar granted both coats to Richard Weston of Rugeley and his cousins at Lichfield.” See Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:95. Waters tried to cite heraldic evidence in support of his claim that the Weston pedigree was a fabrication. Yet an examination of the records reveals that his assertion is without merit.
> >
> > For those who want to know more about the Weston pedigree controversy, we address the assertion of fabrication by Waters – and examine Weston pedigree documentation as well as independent contemporary records – in our book Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms (Woodbridge, VA: Renatus Press, 2022). https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/
> >
> > By the way, final resolution of this controversy should be of special interest to the estimated five million Americans who trace their ancestries to Weston family immigrants Jeremy Clarke and Frances Latham of Newport, Rhode Island; Elizabeth Cooke and Rev. William Walton of Marblehead, Massachusetts; and Stephen Terry and Jane Hardey of Dorchester, Massachusetts.
> >
> > Shawn
> Thank You, Shawn, for bringing the Weston lineage to light here (and I am reading through the long history of your Pedigree considerations). And also Thanks to Joe Cochoit on WikiTree for following your lead and giving a thumbs up to the Cecilia Neville-John Weston connection. As it is my same great grandmother who is my James Cudworth connection (for those familiar with that morass of, seemingly never to be rectified, questions) who is also descended from William Walton, I feel closer to my third proven Royal lineage from here in Plymouth County (Edmund Hawes and Edward Raynsford are my first two). I won't tell you how many Mayflower lines I have proven:-), but in my retirement I have moved on to Royal/Charlemagne lines. Proving 20-30 generations is so much more difficult that my typically 10-12 from The Mayflower. I also have a strong George Morton heritage so am following with interest the Morton of Bawtry line on this great board, also.
>
> Great fun, Thanks again Shawn, and to all who are making such great observations and citing of sources.
>
> Paul Bumpus

Yes, Shawn, Thank You. I am on the Walton line;

1. Edward III, King of England = Philippe of Hainault
2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = Blanche of Lancaster
(descendant of Henry III, King of England)
3. Elizabeth of Lancaster = John de Holand, 1st Duke of Exeter
(descendant of Edward I, King of England)
4. John de Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter = Anne de Stafford (descendant
of Edward III, King of England)
5. Anne de Holand = Sir John Neville, 1st Baron Neville (descendant
of Edward I, King of England)
6. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland = Isabel Booth
7. Ralph Neville, Lord Neville = Edith Sandys
8. Cecilia Neville = John Weston of Weeford
9. Alice Weston = John Ball of Lichfield
10. Isabel Ball = John White of Stanton
11. Martha White = Rev. William Cooke
12. Elizabeth Cooke = Rev. William Walton 13. Elizabeth Walton = Lot Conant
14. Martha Conant = Luke Perkins
15. Luke Perkins = Ruth Cushman (Allerton – Howland descendant)
16. Ignatious Perkins = Keziah Davis (James Cudworth descendant)
17. Ruth Perkins = Jesse Pierce
18. David Pierce = Desire Nye
19. Mary Ann Pierce = David Harlow
20. Hannah Pierce Harlow = Reuben Bumpus

Some may note my 16, Ignatious Perkins = Keziah Davis is my much debated James Cudworth line, so I am following with interest this new, perhaps better, connection to Royalty.

Thanks Again for your work,
Paul S. Bumpus

On 12-Dec-22 6:38 AM, Shawn Potter wrote:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 6:36:25 AM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> According to ODNB John Weston's son and heir Robert was born in or
>> before 1522 - how is it established that the marriage of his parents had
>> taken place 15 years before 1526? Do this mean it was contracted ca
>> 1511, or consummated by around then? If it was perhaps not consummated
>> until around 1521, then how is it proven that Cecily could not have been
>> a maternal half-sister of Ralph Nevill?
>
> Hi Peter
>
> Thank you for your good question. We provide contemporary evidence that Edmund Weston, Archdeacon of Lewes; Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas; Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland; James Weston of Lichfield; and Christopher Weston, Burgess of Tamworth, were brothers -- just as presented in the Weston pedigree. Edmund completed a B.C.L. at Oxford on 19 Nov 1532, Richard completed a B.C.L. at Oxford on 17 Feb 1532/3, and Robert completed a B.C.L at Oxford on 17 Feb 1538. These records, and other life events which we discuss in our book, suggest that Edmund was born say about 1511, Richard was born say about 1513, and Robert was born say about 1515 (or perhaps a small number of years later). This information, and more, can be found in the genealogical summary of our book. We believe all the evidence suggests Cecily Neville married John Weston of Lichfield in about 1510. Again based on multiple life events, we estimate Cecily Neville's birth year as about 1493, when her father, Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, was married to Edith Sandys.
Then how is it proven that Cecily was not a paternal half-sister to the
4th earl of Westmorland, an illegitimate daughter of his father born to
some other woman while Lord Nevill was married to Edith Sandys? Does it
not seem a little odd that her descendants kept stating whose sister she
was rather than whose daughter? Did these descendants who had such a
slanted view of their own ancestry ever hold any vestige of Sandys
inheritance?
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:56:10 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Reviewing again the older thread on this same subject, a few points seem damning.

Hi Will,

As I have noted before, many people have said a lot about the Weston pedigree over the years without ever bothering to examine the original documents. In the process, they often repeat unfounded assertions by Waters, and thereby perpetuate his mistakes. We address this false assertion on page 18 of our book.

“… it is regrettable that Waters failed to identify the Neville wills that he said do not mention Cecily. The authors engaged archivists at The National Archives in London, Durham University in Durham, and the University of York in York, to search for wills of (1) Ralph Neville, Lord Neville; (2) Edith Sandys, wife firstly of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, and secondly of Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy; (3) Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy; (4) Elizabeth, daughter of Edith Sandys and Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy, and wife of Marmaduke Constable, Knt.; (5) Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland; and (6) Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. The archivists reported that they found no wills for any of these individuals.”

So I would ask what wills the people who make this argument are referring to. And why does the number of times such a red herring has been repeated matter?

We continue on the same page of our book:

“The authors further note that even if Waters identified a Neville will that did not mention Cecily, his argument from silence would be unconvincing, because the rule of primogeniture rather than bequest by will determined the inheritance of real property before 1540, when Parliament enacted the Act of Wills, Wards, and Primer Seisins, Whereby a Man May Devise Two Parts of His Land.12 Therefore, it would not be surprising to find a will during this timeframe that did not mention a child that was not a principal heir.”

I think the more relevant question is, why did a reputable genealogist, like Waters, make such a baseless argument? As a barrister, did Waters not know the evidence he cited was without merit? This mistake does not inspire confidence in his judgment.

Furthermore, why have so many people followed his lead, without examining the original records for themselves, for all these years? This history suggests to us that some people really do follow the motto: “He is an authority; he said it; and I believe it.”

Regarding your second point, the evidence we present in our book demonstrates that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. Speculations five hundred years later about who she should have married, or should not have married, are beside the point in light of the record.

Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 4:42:10 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> Then how is it proven that Cecily was not a paternal half-sister to the
> 4th earl of Westmorland, an illegitimate daughter of his father born to
> some other woman while Lord Nevill was married to Edith Sandys?

Hi Peter,

We address the mistaken notion that some people tried to advanced here years ago that Cecily Neville was illegitimate in our book. See page 219, footnote 15.

“Herald Lily and Garter Segar indicated that Cecily was a legitimate daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, by the arms they created for Cecily’s husband, John Weston of Lichfield, as illustrated in the Weston pedigree. For the father of Cecily Neville in a genealogical tree with marital arms see Illuminated Genealogy of the Family of Weston-under-Lizard, co. Stafford, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 74251A, folio 16 verso, The British Library Manuscript Department, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK. See also Weston-Cave Heraldic Pedigrees by William Segar, Knt., Garter King of Arms, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 18667, folio 14 recto, The British Library Manuscript Department, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK. Arms are not included in the tree found in Weston Pedigree, 25 Nov 1633, 1344/1, Staffordshire Record Office, Eastgate Street, Stafford, UK. The arms on these pages are of Neville (gules a saltire argent) impaling Weston (argent an eagle displayed sable). If Cecily had been born out of wedlock, Herald Lily and Garter Segar would not have impaled the arms of John Weston of Lichfield with the arms of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville. See also Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), 358. “Legally, at birth a bastard child has then no name at all, and no arms. He [or she] inherits no arms at all, no name, and no property, save by specific devise or bequest. But if under a will or deed of settlement an illegitimate child is required to assume the name and arms of its father or of its mother, a Royal License to assume such name and arms is considered to be necessary. Such a petition is always granted, on proper proof of the facts, if made in due form through the proper channels. The Royal license to that effect is then issued. But the document contains two conditions, the first being that the arms shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms ‘with due and proper marks of distinction,’ and that the Royal License shall be recorded in the College of Arms, otherwise ‘to be void and of none effect.’””

Also, it is not correct to say that “her descendants kept stating whose sister she was rather than whose daughter.” See the letter by her grandson, Simon Weston, Knt., of Lichfield, also in our book, pages 100-106. I quoted his statement here in an earlier note: “… my Grandfather Iohn Weston, who whilest he liued in England, liued in the Citty of Lichfeld, and had to wife Cecely, the daughter of Ralph Neuill that died in the life tyme of the Earle of Westmorland his father.”

Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:34:46 AM UTC-5, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
> Shawn, Thank you to you and Lois for all your work. I'm relatively new here and have been following this thread with great interest. Am just starting to explore medieval genealogy, and have purchased your book. This reading will significantly enhance my understanding of gathering and evaluating evidence and making a case, and I'm looking forward to learning more about the Westons and the families of the earls of Westmorland. Congratulations! Jinny

Hi Jinny,

Thank you for your kind words and welcome encouragement. My wife and I wish you great success as you continue to research your ancestry.

Shawn

On 14-Dec-22 9:24 AM, Shawn Potter wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 4:42:10 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> Then how is it proven that Cecily was not a paternal half-sister to the
>> 4th earl of Westmorland, an illegitimate daughter of his father born to
>> some other woman while Lord Nevill was married to Edith Sandys?
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> We address the mistaken notion that some people tried to advanced here years ago that Cecily Neville was illegitimate in our book. See page 219, footnote 15.
>
> “Herald Lily and Garter Segar indicated that Cecily was a legitimate daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, by the arms they created for Cecily’s husband, John Weston of Lichfield, as illustrated in the Weston pedigree. For the father of Cecily Neville in a genealogical tree with marital arms see Illuminated Genealogy of the Family of Weston-under-Lizard, co. Stafford, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 74251A, folio 16 verso, The British Library Manuscript Department, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK. See also Weston-Cave Heraldic Pedigrees by William Segar, Knt., Garter King of Arms, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 18667, folio 14 recto, The British Library Manuscript Department, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK. Arms are not included in the tree found in Weston Pedigree, 25 Nov 1633, 1344/1, Staffordshire Record Office, Eastgate Street, Stafford, UK. The arms on these pages are of Neville (gules a saltire argent) impaling Weston (argent an eagle displayed sable). If Cecily had been born out of wedlock, Herald Lily and Garter Segar would not have impaled the arms of John Weston of Lichfield with the arms of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville. See also Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), 358. “Legally, at birth a bastard child has then no name at all, and no arms. He [or she] inherits no arms at all, no name, and no property, save by specific devise or bequest. But if under a will or deed of settlement an illegitimate child is required to assume the name and arms of its father or of its mother, a Royal License to assume such name and arms is considered to be necessary. Such a petition is always granted, on proper proof of the facts, if made in due form through the proper channels. The Royal license to that effect is then issued. But the document contains two conditions, the first being that the arms shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms ‘with due and proper marks of distinction,’ and that the Royal License shall be recorded in the College of Arms, otherwise ‘to be void and of none effect.’””
>
> Also, it is not correct to say that “her descendants kept stating whose sister she was rather than whose daughter.” See the letter by her grandson, Simon Weston, Knt., of Lichfield, also in our book, pages 100-106. I quoted his statement here in an earlier note: “… my Grandfather Iohn Weston, who whilest he liued in England, liued in the Citty of Lichfeld, and had to wife Cecely, the daughter of Ralph Neuill that died in the life tyme of the Earle of Westmorland his father.”
>
One instance of calling her Lord Nevill's daughter does not negate
repeated instances of calling her instead the earl of Westmorland's
sister. Why could not Herald Lily and Garter Segar be misled - or bribed
- as other officers of arms have been?
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-5, psbu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Again for your work,

Hi Paul,

It looks like we are cousins through Elizabeth Walton and her husband Lot Conant. I am glad to make your acquaintance. Thank you again for your kind words about our work. We wish you great success in your continued genealogy research.

Shawn

A terça-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2022 à(s) 19:56:10 UTC, wjhons....@gmail.com escreveu:
> Reviewing again the older thread on this same subject, a few points seem damning.
>
> One, as has been beaten many times, is that this Cecily, and even her descendants, are not mentioned in any of the wills of this family to which she is said to belong.
>
> Even more so, as, during the time the 4th Earl remained childless, she and her supposed sister, would have been co-heiresses to the immense fortune of the Westmoreland lands. Immense. Not slight. Enormous.
>
> That she might be married off to some nobody, is not credible.
Regarding the issue of whether a sister of the Earl of Westmorland would have married a member of the local gentry, as
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Notes_on_Cecilia_Weston#Other_Objections_Raised notes, Edith Sandys, supposed mother of Cecilia Neville, was from a local gentry family and her mother in law Isabel Booth was barely above her. What do you think of that, Will? Admittedly, AFAIK, men were more likely than women to marry people from lower status than then

On 14-Dec-22 9:40 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A terça-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2022 à(s) 19:56:10 UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
>> Reviewing again the older thread on this same subject, a few points seem damning.
>>
>> One, as has been beaten many times, is that this Cecily, and even her descendants, are not mentioned in any of the wills of this family to which she is said to belong.
>>
>> Even more so, as, during the time the 4th Earl remained childless, she and her supposed sister, would have been co-heiresses to the immense fortune of the Westmoreland lands. Immense. Not slight. Enormous.
>>
>> That she might be married off to some nobody, is not credible.
> Regarding the issue of whether a sister of the Earl of Westmorland would have married a member of the local gentry, as
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Notes_on_Cecilia_Weston#Other_Objections_Raised notes, Edith Sandys, supposed mother of Cecilia Neville, was from a local gentry family and her mother in law Isabel Booth was barely above her. What do you think of that, Will? Admittedly, AFAIK, men were more likely than women to marry people from lower status than then

The marriage of females from the local gentry to magnates with vast
possessions and high titles is not analogous to the opposite kind of
match, where a potential heiress to vast possessions and corresponding
rank was married off to a comparative nonentity.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> Why could not Herald Lily and Garter Segar be misled - or bribed - as other officers of arms have been?

Hi Peter,

Where is the evidence that Herald Lily and Garter Segar were misled or bribed? I know of no reason to believe this slanderous claim by Waters. So why continue to repeat it?

We demonstrate that every argument Waters made against the pedigree was wrong. This sounds like hyperbole, but it is not. Those who are interested will have to read our book to understand what I am saying. I ask once again: How could Waters have been so wrong about such a series of assertions? I do not know the answer, but, in light of the evidence, it is a question worth asking.

At the same time, there is a good deal of independent evidence that supports the account of the family as presented in the Weston pedigree.

I prefer to follow the evidence, even when it demonstrates that a reputable genealogist and barrister was wrong.

Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:54:48 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The marriage of females from the local gentry to magnates with vast possessions and high titles is not analogous to the opposite kind of match, where a potential heiress to vast possessions and corresponding rank was married off to a comparative nonentity.

Peter,

I repeat a slightly edited form of what I posted earlier today.

The evidence we present in our book demonstrates that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. Speculation five hundred years later about who she should have married, or should not have married, are beside the point in light of the record.

We summarize our thoughts in the conclusion of our book:

"Yet the authors formed their conclusion about the veracity of these two statements in the Weston pedigree [the fraternal relationship between Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston, and the identity of their mother] not on the basis of speculation about the likelihood of conspiracy, but on the weight of the evidence from contemporary records. We found that independent descriptions of Weston family monuments, when compared with Weston pedigree sketches, demonstrate the accuracy of the Weston pedigree’s accompanying documentation; the two statements in the Weston pedigree that Waters alleged were fabrications are well supported by Weston pedigree documents — including contemporary deeds and credible witness testimony — as well as by independent sources; and none of the counter arguments presented by Waters, and others, are persuasive."

Shawn

On 14-Dec-22 10:21 AM, Shawn Potter wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:54:48 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The marriage of females from the local gentry to magnates with vast possessions and high titles is not analogous to the opposite kind of match, where a potential heiress to vast possessions and corresponding rank was married off to a comparative nonentity.
>
> Peter,
>
> I repeat a slightly edited form of what I posted earlier today.
>
> The evidence we present in our book demonstrates that the mother of Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. Speculation five hundred years later about who she should have married, or should not have married, are beside the point in light of the record.
>
> We summarize our thoughts in the conclusion of our book:
>
> "Yet the authors formed their conclusion about the veracity of these two statements in the Weston pedigree [the fraternal relationship between Justice Weston and Chancellor Weston, and the identity of their mother] not on the basis of speculation about the likelihood of conspiracy, but on the weight of the evidence from contemporary records. We found that independent descriptions of Weston family monuments, when compared with Weston pedigree sketches, demonstrate the accuracy of the Weston pedigree’s accompanying documentation; the two statements in the Weston pedigree that Waters alleged were fabrications are well supported by Weston pedigree documents — including contemporary deeds and credible witness testimony — as well as by independent sources; and none of the counter arguments presented by Waters, and others, are persuasive."

The case you have presented in this forum would be far more persuasive
if you had Nevills describing Westons as their relatives. Extraordinary
marriages no doubt did occur in the early 16th century, but so did
extraordinary impostures by families on the make. The circumstantial
grounds for doubt cannot be dismissed just for being 500 years old,
especially given that the documentation as presented here is short of
absolutely satisfactory.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:27:03 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The case you have presented in this forum would be far more persuasive if you had Nevills describing Westons as their relatives.

Hi Peter,

I am not trying to present my case on this forum. See my initial post. I am encouraging readers to examine the evidence that my wife and I present in our book. My responses to you and others here are intended to be a courtesy to those who sincerely seek to understand our work.

We follow the evidence where it leads rather than trying to imagine how this or that bit of evidence, if it had survived, would have effected our conclusions. The evidence we found and present is compelling.

Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:55:01 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> We follow the evidence where it leads rather than trying to imagine how this or that bit of evidence, if it had survived, would have effected our conclusions. The evidence we found and present is compelling.

Group,

Several people have recently posted something to the effect that the sister of an earl would not marry a nobody. Those who make this argument are assuming that John Weston of Lichfield was a nobody. Records from this period are so scarce that this kind of speculation is risky. Sir Simon wrote “… my Grandfather Iohn Weston, who whilest he liued in England …” What was John Weston of Lichfield doing abroad? Where was he? Who was he with? Was he engaged in military or diplomatic service, or was he studying abroad? We do not know. The record of his activities overseas, to my knowledge, have not been found. His father-in-law’s cousin, Charles Booth, Bishop of Hereford, graduated from the University of Bologna with a degree in civil law in 1493; and someone named James Weston graduated from the same institution with a degree in canon law in 1494. Was John Weston of Lichfield in Bologna? I have no reason to think so; but I ask the question to show that this kind of speculation is endless.

I do not accept the assertion that John Weston of Lichfield was a nobody, because there is no evidence for the statement. According to the records we present in our book, he was enough of a somebody to marry the sister of an earl. And his wife certainly was a somebody. After all, their descendants through three sons included seven earls, nine knights, a head of England’s treasury, a justice of England’s supreme court for matters of equity, a justice of England’s supreme court for matters of common law, two heads of Ireland’s treasury, a head of Ireland’s judiciary, and a head of Ireland’s legislative affairs.

Rather than engaging in endless speculation, why not examine the evidence we present in our book? I think you will find the case to be compelling.

Shawn

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:01:03 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> Rather than engaging in endless speculation, why not examine the evidence we present in our book? I think you will find the case to be compelling.

Group,

My wife and I appreciate all those who posed sincere questions about, and shared their informed impressions of, our work Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/

As I mentioned in my initial post on this thread, we would be happy to discuss our work with anyone directly. Our contact information is in the About Us section of our book.

Best always,
Shawn Potter

On 14-Dec-22 1:55 PM, Shawn Potter wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:27:03 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The case you have presented in this forum would be far more persuasive if you had Nevills describing Westons as their relatives.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I am not trying to present my case on this forum. See my initial post. I am encouraging readers to examine the evidence that my wife and I present in our book. My responses to you and others here are intended to be a courtesy to those who sincerely seek to understand our work.
>
> We follow the evidence where it leads rather than trying to imagine how this or that bit of evidence, if it had survived, would have effected our conclusions. The evidence we found and present is compelling.

Well, the evidence you have presented in this forum is not compelling.

If you are not trying to present your case here, I don't understand why
you have posted so much about it. You can characterise your work and
advertise your book for sale as you wish, but you can't compel agreement
in this forum just by expecting it to result from this.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:19:28 PM UTC-8, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:56:10 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Reviewing again the older thread on this same subject, a few points seem damning.
> Hi Will,
>
> As I have noted before, many people have said a lot about the Weston pedigree over the years without ever bothering to examine the original documents. In the process, they often repeat unfounded assertions by Waters, and thereby perpetuate his mistakes. We address this false assertion on page 18 of our book.
>
> “… it is regrettable that Waters failed to identify the Neville wills that he said do not mention Cecily. The authors engaged archivists at The National Archives in London, Durham University in Durham, and the University of York in York, to search for wills of (1) Ralph Neville, Lord Neville; (2) Edith Sandys, wife firstly of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, and secondly of Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy; (3) Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy; (4) Elizabeth, daughter of Edith Sandys and Thomas Darcy, Knt., Lord Darcy, and wife of Marmaduke Constable, Knt.; (5) Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland; and (6) Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. The archivists reported that they found no wills for any of these individuals.”
>
> So I would ask what wills the people who make this argument are referring to. And why does the number of times such a red herring has been repeated matter?
>
> We continue on the same page of our book:
>
> “The authors further note that even if Waters identified a Neville will that did not mention Cecily, his argument from silence would be unconvincing, because the rule of primogeniture rather than bequest by will determined the inheritance of real property before 1540, when Parliament enacted the Act of Wills, Wards, and Primer Seisins, Whereby a Man May Devise Two Parts of His Land.12 Therefore, it would not be surprising to find a will during this time frame that did not mention a child that was not a principal heir.”
>

Wills are not used for the purpose of devising land generally, in this period, as you've stated.
No one has ever said that there should be a will devising land to Cecily.
Just that she is not mentioned.

However wills can contain dozens of bequests and instructions that have nothing to do with land.
So this paragraph is a bit misapplied in this case.

By the way, did you manage to review the IPMs at all for this family?