On the point of Edith Sandys herself being a "nobody", we should note the close relationship of Henry VIII to her brother William, and thus her prospects were greatly elevated from what one might suppose based on their background alone.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:48:10 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> 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?

I might also mention, that the wills *in* this family, and their own IPM where occurring, do not make any mention of this connection. Which is odd. You should give to the rich and famous, something, so they remember that your branch exists too.

PROB 11/55: Will of Robert Weston, Chancellor of Ireland
PROB 11/73: Will of James Weston of Lichfield, Staffordshire
PROB 11/54: Will of Richard Westone, Queen's Justice of Common Pleas
of Westminster, Middlesex

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> Another critical record is the Heralds Visitation of Essex from 1612.

Hi Leslie,

Records should be interpreted in light of both content and context. With this in mind, I offer the following thoughts. First, the pedigree does not identify the parents of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas. That does not mean that the heralds did not know the identity of his parents, or that he did not have parents 😊, or that his parents were, or were not, these people or that. Second, contemporary records reveal that people in the pedigree understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. See our book.. And third, contemporary records reveal that the heralds understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. Again, see our book. So it makes no sense to suggest that this document demonstrates that Cecily Neville was not his mother.

Furthermore, Weston-Cave Heraldic Pedigrees by William Segar, Knt., Garter King of Arms, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 18667 -- one of the three known copies of the Weston pedigree, includes a copy of this pedigree among the documentation. So the heralds were aware of it, and did not consider it to be problematic.

Those who refuse to look at the complete record, while speculating about how this document or that – considered in no context at all – might suggest that Waters was correct, reveal their bias. And they repeat the errors made by Waters. Where is the objectivity and good scholarship in that?

Shawn

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:59:59 PM UTC-8, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> > Another critical record is the Heralds Visitation of Essex from 1612.
> Hi Leslie,
>
> Records should be interpreted in light of both content and context. With this in mind, I offer the following thoughts. First, the pedigree does not identify the parents of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas. That does not mean that the heralds did not know the identity of his parents, or that he did not have parents 😊, or that his parents were, or were not, these people or that. Second, contemporary records reveal that people in the pedigree understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. See our book. And third, contemporary records reveal that the heralds understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. Again, see our book. So it makes no sense to suggest that this document demonstrates that Cecily Neville was not his mother.
>
> Furthermore, Weston-Cave Heraldic Pedigrees by William Segar, Knt., Garter King of Arms, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 18667 -- one of the three known copies of the Weston pedigree, includes a copy of this pedigree among the documentation. So the heralds were aware of it, and did not consider it to be problematic.
>
> Those who refuse to look at the complete record, while speculating about how this document or that – considered in no context at all – might suggest that Waters was correct, reveal their bias. And they repeat the errors made by Waters. Where is the objectivity and good scholarship in that?
>
> Shawn

Correcting your above
That one herald was told the name of his mother.
There are zero contemporary records that reveal the people within the pedigree knew the name of his mother.
That *one* herald was told the name of his mother
That that same herald who was told the name, included it, is not any surprise to any of us.

It's rather profligant and circular logic to keep coming back to this *one single* document, and then proclaiming that the whole world was aware of it and agreed with it.

Esp. in the fact of, for example this very visitation *not* itself proclaiming, that this line descended from an illustrious pedigree and instead just stated from the ancient Westons.... or whatever

As if that was even on the same level with Westmoreland.

By the way I would note that even this Vis. is quite some distance away from being contemporary on this particular question.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:59:59 PM UTC-8, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> > Another critical record is the Heralds Visitation of Essex from 1612.
> Hi Leslie,
>
> Records should be interpreted in light of both content and context. With this in mind, I offer the following thoughts. First, the pedigree does not identify the parents of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas. That does not mean that the heralds did not know the identity of his parents, or that he did not have parents 😊, or that his parents were, or were not, these people or that. Second, contemporary records reveal that people in the pedigree understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. See our book. And third, contemporary records reveal that the heralds understood that Cecily Neville was his mother. Again, see our book. So it makes no sense to suggest that this document demonstrates that Cecily Neville was not his mother.
>
> Furthermore, Weston-Cave Heraldic Pedigrees by William Segar, Knt., Garter King of Arms, 25 Nov 1633, Add. 18667 -- one of the three known copies of the Weston pedigree, includes a copy of this pedigree among the documentation. So the heralds were aware of it, and did not consider it to be problematic.
>
> Those who refuse to look at the complete record, while speculating about how this document or that – considered in no context at all – might suggest that Waters was correct, reveal their bias. And they repeat the errors made by Waters. Where is the objectivity and good scholarship in that?
>
> Shawn

The book is good, but it does leave some of the answers out, like were there Neville docs referring to Cecilia (or docs from her mother, or siblings!).. Maybe if you answered some of those questions here...

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:04:44 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> The book is good, but it does leave some of the answers out, like were there Neville docs referring to Cecilia (or docs from her mother, or siblings!). Maybe if you answered some of those questions here...

Hi PJ,

Thank you for complementing our work. I answered this question earlier. We address the matter on pages 17-18 of our book where we discuss Waters’ third objection to the Weston pedigree. Waters said no Neville wills mention Cecily, as if his statement proves that Cecily was not a Neville. Yet archivists we engaged found no wills for any relevant Neville (and related) family members. So why did Waters make such a misleading assertion? And why are people repeating his false claim? I think they should consider the evidence we present in Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/.

Shawn

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 5:50:22 PM UTC-8, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:04:44 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The book is good, but it does leave some of the answers out, like were there Neville docs referring to Cecilia (or docs from her mother, or siblings!). Maybe if you answered some of those questions here...
> Hi PJ,
>
> Thank you for complementing our work. I answered this question earlier. We address the matter on pages 17-18 of our book where we discuss Waters’ third objection to the Weston pedigree. Waters said no Neville wills mention Cecily, as if his statement proves that Cecily was not a Neville. Yet archivists we engaged found no wills for any relevant Neville (and related) family members. So why did Waters make such a misleading assertion? And why are people repeating his false claim? I think they should consider the evidence we present in Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/.
>
> Shawn

Well you had archivists search for *some* wills. I wouldn't say all the relevant ones exactly.
People can and did will things to maiden aunts and even married aunts, and uncles, and what we today would call first cousins also.

And you didn't apparently look at the IPMs.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:50:22 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:04:44 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The book is good, but it does leave some of the answers out, like were there Neville docs referring to Cecilia (or docs from her mother, or siblings!). Maybe if you answered some of those questions here...
> Hi PJ,
>
> Thank you for complementing our work. I answered this question earlier. We address the matter on pages 17-18 of our book where we discuss Waters’ third objection to the Weston pedigree. Waters said no Neville wills mention Cecily, as if his statement proves that Cecily was not a Neville. Yet archivists we engaged found no wills for any relevant Neville (and related) family members. So why did Waters make such a misleading assertion? And why are people repeating his false claim? I think they should consider the evidence we present in Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/.
>
> Shawn

As I mentioned in my earlier post, on page 18 of our book we explain: “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.”

In 2012 – ten years ago – my wife and I also asked these same archivists to search for IPMs. The only response in the affirmative was from the National Archives. The archivist there wrote: “There are no surviving inquisitions post mortem for the individuals which you name, with the exceptions of those which we have already searched on your behalf (Thomas Lord Darcy and Ralph, 3rd Earl of Westmorland).” Neither Isabel nor Cecily are named in these. “I would say though that you are much more likely to find mentions of daughters in wills rather than in IPMs, particularly in a case like this where Ralph 3rd Earl of Westmorland had a male heir to his lands and title.”

So I ask again, why did Waters say that Cecily does not appear in any Neville wills? It seems likely to us that he thought no one would examine the record and discover his misleading assertion. What does that say about his credibility? And now that my wife and I have uncovered the numerous baseless statements about the Weston pedigree that Waters made in his article – see our book, I ask again, why do some continue to repeat his unfounded claims?

Shawn

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:50:22 PM UTC-5, Shawn Potter wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 8:04:44 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The book is good, but it does leave some of the answers out, like were there Neville docs referring to Cecilia (or docs from her mother, or siblings!). Maybe if you answered some of those questions here...
> > Hi PJ,
> >
> > Thank you for complementing our work. I answered this question earlier. We address the matter on pages 17-18 of our book where we discuss Waters’ third objection to the Weston pedigree. Waters said no Neville wills mention Cecily, as if his statement proves that Cecily was not a Neville. Yet archivists we engaged found no wills for any relevant Neville (and related) family members. So why did Waters make such a misleading assertion? And why are people repeating his false claim? I think they should consider the evidence we present in Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/.
> >
> > Shawn
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, on page 18 of our book we explain: “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.”
>
> In 2012 – ten years ago – my wife and I also asked these same archivists to search for IPMs. The only response in the affirmative was from the National Archives. The archivist there wrote: “There are no surviving inquisitions post mortem for the individuals which you name, with the exceptions of those which we have already searched on your behalf (Thomas Lord Darcy and Ralph, 3rd Earl of Westmorland).” Neither Isabel nor Cecily are named in these. “I would say though that you are much more likely to find mentions of daughters in wills rather than in IPMs, particularly in a case like this where Ralph 3rd Earl of Westmorland had a male heir to his lands and title.”
>
> So I ask again, why did Waters say that Cecily does not appear in any Neville wills? It seems likely to us that he thought no one would examine the record and discover his misleading assertion. What does that say about his credibility? And now that my wife and I have uncovered the numerous baseless statements about the Weston pedigree that Waters made in his article – see our book, I ask again, why do some continue to repeat his unfounded claims?
>
> Shawn

I took a look at the Weston entries in the _Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_(2004). Only Richard the Judge was of sufficient standing to have an entry.

Weston, Richard (d. 1572), judge, was probably a grandson of William Weston (d. 1513/14) of Essex and London, mercer, and lived in Essex until his death. The arms on his monument were the same as William's but differenced by a martlet charged with a molet, indicating that he was the third son of a fourth son. To judge from his standing in the Middle Temple, he was probably admitted in the mid-1530s, in which case he would have been born in the 1510s. That makes it difficult to identify him with the youngest son of Richard Weston of Colchester, Essex, who (together with two elder brothers) was under age at his father's death in 1541-2. Some pedigrees make him the second son of John Weston of Lichfield, Staffordshire, who was the fourth son of John Weston of Rugeley, and whose descendants included two judges in the reign of Charles I. Nothing is known of the lawyer before 1548 ...
....
.... he was buried at Writtle, Essex, near the body of his second wife. There is a tomb chest in the church with three brass shields of arms, but no inscription or effigy, in accordance with his testamentary wish that it should be 'made withoute curiositie'. The impalements on the shield record his three marriages.
....

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> I took a look at the Weston entries in the _Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_(2004). Only Richard the Judge was of sufficient standing to have an entry.

Thanks, Johnny. That's very interesting. Someone should let the authors know about our book - Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/ 😊

Shawn

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 5:36:56 PM UTC-5, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > I took a look at the Weston entries in the _Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_(2004). Only Richard the Judge was of sufficient standing to have an entry.
> Thanks, Johnny. That's very interesting. Someone should let the authors know about our book - Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/ 😊
>
> Shawn

Or perhaps you could mail him a copy to England --- it would be the polite thing to do!

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 8:14:08 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> Or perhaps you could mail him a copy to England --- it would be the polite thing to do!

I agree, Johnny. We will do that. Thanks again. 😊

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 8:14:08 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> Or perhaps you could mail him a copy to England --- it would be the polite thing to do!

I agree. We will do that. Thanks. 😊

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 10:48:34 AM UTC-5, Shawn Potter 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

Group,

My wife and I congratulate Joe Cochoit for discovering two independent copies of item 8 above in the archives of the College of Arms. These independent copies are identical to the record that is included in the Weston pedigree supporting documentation. These independent copies confirm the authenticity of the Weston pedigree document. See our book for other examples of independent records that authenticate Weston pedigree documentation. An image of the document can be found on page 108 of our book.

The document is a deposition by Nicholas Bacon for creation of a funeral certificate for his father-in-law, James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer.. It was not created to support the Weston pedigree. In part, Nicholas Bacon stated: “Iames Weston of Lichefeild in the county of Staff: gent’ [was the] fourth sonne of Iohn Weston by Cecilie his wife daughter of Rafe Neuile Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland.” Henry Chitting, Chester Herald of the College of Arms, certified Nicholas Bacon’s statement.

Good work, Joe. We just credited you for making this discovery in an update to our book.

Shawn

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 2:29:24 AM UTC, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My wife and I congratulate Joe Cochoit for discovering two independent copies of item 8 above in the archives of the College of Arms. These independent copies are identical to the record that is included in the Weston pedigree supporting documentation. These independent copies confirm the authenticity of the Weston pedigree document. See our book for other examples of independent records that authenticate Weston pedigree documentation. An image of the document can be found on page 108 of our book.
>
> The document is a deposition by Nicholas Bacon for creation of a funeral certificate for his father-in-law, James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer. It was not created to support the Weston pedigree. In part, Nicholas Bacon stated: “Iames Weston of Lichefeild in the county of Staff: gent’ [was the] fourth sonne of Iohn Weston by Cecilie his wife daughter of Rafe Neuile Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland.” Henry Chitting, Chester Herald of the College of Arms, certified Nicholas Bacon’s statement.
>
> Good work, Joe. We just credited you for making this discovery in an update to our book.
>
> Shawn

I hesitate to intrude upon this orgy of self-congratulation, but this latest post is yet another prime example of confirmation bias.

The deposition for a funeral certificate of Sir James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer (c1634), is not an independent document. It is a document that reflects the same understanding that had been asserted in the 1632 pedigree, and for all we know is based on that pedigree, in which case it would not be surprising to find that it is consistent with it.

Looking at the 8 "new discoveries" that are presented above (and repeated in the immediately preceding post) as supporting the 1632 pedigree, and in particular the connection of the Lichfield, Essex and Rugeley Westons and the contention that John Weston of Lichfield married Cecily Neville:

>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.

Or entirely consistent with intelligent men from a mercantile background carving a career for themselves in Tudor England (when new-made men abounded), and then bringing their families along on their coat-tails.

> 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..

Neighbours, friends and the public at large most likely did not care one whit who the Westons claimed relationships with. It is laughable to suppose that the man in the street in Lichfield or London was reading the 1632 Pedigree and eagerly devouring its contents - how would they even know it existed? In any case, the true age of sceptical genealogy was still two centuries distant.
> 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.

And there is no evidence that they held it on favourable terms, or that this connection is anything other than coincidence.

> 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.

Matt Tompkins disposed of this baseless assertion as long ago as 2014: the prebendary of Sawley was held by the Treasurer of Lichfield Cathedral locums tenens; it was never owned by John Weston's sons, but rather was leased by them from the owner. Although it is not included in this list, it has also been asserted that the passage of the advowson of Bucknell, Oxfordshire also "proves" a link between the Essex and Lichfield Westons, since it "passed" from Jerome Weston of Essex to Alice Ball nee Weston of Lichfield. This is an excellent example of the way the evidence has been massaged as part of this debate, again presumably due to confirmation bias: the advowson was sold in 1574, not given or inherited, and unless the sale details can be shown to state relationships between the parties, or be on peculiarly favourable terms, it should be presumed to be a normal business transaction. Another example is the decision simply to ignore the 1532 'Census' of Lichfield when presenting the "evidence" in book form; it is difficult to conclude otherwise than this was done because it is inconvenient (showing a John Weston of Lichfield with no wife Cecily and no son Richard...)
> 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.

Except that we have no idea when these monuments were erected, or whether they were altered after their erection. A monument can be erected many years after the death of the individual it commemorates. Do we know the erection date of the monument alleged to commemorate James Weston (d 1589) at St Mary's, Lichfield, as presented in the 1632 Pedigree? The other "tombs" post-date the 1632 Pedigree, so they are not independent of it and likely reflect its assertions - in that case, they cannot be used to confirm it. Worse, as has been noted here before (2011), there is a serious question mark about the authenticity of other monumental evidence presented in the 1632 Pedigree: Bertram, J ("The Weston Brass at Rugeley", Antiquaries Journal vol 72, 1992, 180-191) - Bertram concluded that it had been forged. If the proponents of this Pedigree had gone to the lengths of forging monuments, why should any assertion it contains be believed?

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

As has been pointed out multiple times over many years, the only evidence for the existence of this slightly unusual deed is the 1632 Pedigree. If that Pedigree is untrustworthy, so is the "deed". It might be worth mentioning here that the continuous denigration of Chester Waters on this point does not reflect positively on the modern proponents of the 1632 Pedigree.

> 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.

It was also pointed out here in 2011 that this is inconsistent with the Weston element of the Mytton pedigree in Harl MS 6128, which asserts that Sir Simon Weston was the paternal grandson of "John or Thomas Weston", son of William Weston of Prested Hall, Essex, "by a daughter of Nevill, Lord Abergavenny". This is a crucial point which has been ignored for 11 years. This alternative pedigree dates from between 1608 and 1622 (since it refers to Sir Simon's son-in-law as Sir Robert Ridgeway - he was knighted in 1608 and became Lord Ridgeway in 1622 when his father was created Earl of Londonderry). This indicates that 10 or 20 years before Sir Simon wrote his letter of December 1631 claiming his grandmother as Joan Neville of the Westmorland line and close kinship with the Rugeley Westons, he or his family was asserting both a different Neville relationship and a different Weston descent.. Sir Simon is not a credible witness. It is perhaps instructive that his cousin, the Revd John Weston, does not claim a Neville grandmother when he wrote at the same time to outline his understanding of his pedigree.
> > 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.

See above.

Among many other troubling points here, is the fact that the tomb of Robert Weston (d 1573) in Ireland shows the arms of the Weston family of Boston, Lincs and Prested Hall, Essex (ermine, on a chief 5 bezants). His son John used a seal which he claimed had belonged to his grandfather, John of Lichfield, with the same arms, apparently with a martlet for difference. The tomb of Sir Richard Weston the judge (d 1572) in Essex displayed the same arms, differenced by a martlet and a mullet. Yet in 1566 (according to the Rugeley brass) John Weston of Rugeley bore the eagle arms of the ancient Westons - the same arms that Richard Weston (afterwards Earl of Portland) was claiming as a quartering by 1631, that Sir Simon's family was claiming as a quartering between 1608 and 1622, and that was allowed to the families by Garter Segar. Why did John of Lichfield use the arms of the Boston/Essex family (as did his son, and as did Sir Richard the judge) at the same time that his close relative at Rugeley use different arms? (The answer seems to be, of course, that they didn't, since if the 1566 brass is forged, we have no evidence of the use of the eagle arms before Harl MS 6128, and consistent use of the Boston/Essex arms before 1608, and we also have no reliable evidence that the Lichfield and Rugeley families were even related).

Taken together, the available evidence does not support the claimed descent of the Lichfield and Essex families from the ancient Westons, nor their claimed relationship with the Rugeley family, nor even the existence of "Joan Neville", and it also suggests that the 1632 Pedigree is untrustworthy at best, and fabricated at worst.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:06:36 AM UTC-5, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

Mark,

You misrepresent my description of the value of this document. As I explained, it is a deposition for a funeral certificate. It was not produced for the Weston pedigree. It was found in the College of Arms archives, apart from the Weston pedigree, filed among other funeral certificates. Therefore, it confirms that Nicholas Bacon, executor of his father-in-law's estate, truly made the witnessed deposition that is included among the other documentation in the Weston pedigree. This confirmation, like similar independent records that confirm the authenticity of documents that accompany the Weston pedigree, is worth considering when assessing the credibility of the Weston pedigree as a whole.

Furthermore, your comments reveal that you have not bothered to read our book, since we address there many of your false assumptions. You simply repeat mistakes made by Waters and various other posters here since my wife and I first shared our discoveries with the group in 2011. So there is no sense in responding to your many erroneous notions about the evidence that we discovered regarding Cecily Neville. I encourage you, and anyone else who wishes to understand the credibility of the Weston pedigree, to see Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/

Shawn

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:53:45 PM UTC, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:06:36 AM UTC-5, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You misrepresent my description of the value of this document. As I explained, it is a deposition for a funeral certificate. It was not produced for the Weston pedigree. It was found in the College of Arms archives, apart from the Weston pedigree, filed among other funeral certificates. Therefore, it confirms that Nicholas Bacon, executor of his father-in-law's estate, truly made the witnessed deposition that is included among the other documentation in the Weston pedigree. This confirmation, like similar independent records that confirm the authenticity of documents that accompany the Weston pedigree, is worth considering when assessing the credibility of the Weston pedigree as a whole.
>
> Furthermore, your comments reveal that you have not bothered to read our book, since we address there many of your false assumptions. You simply repeat mistakes made by Waters and various other posters here since my wife and I first shared our discoveries with the group in 2011. So there is no sense in responding to your many erroneous notions about the evidence that we discovered regarding Cecily Neville. I encourage you, and anyone else who wishes to understand the credibility of the Weston pedigree, to see Weston Pedigree Reconsidered: A Review of Documentation Provided by the College of Arms, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL5B6YN5/
>
> Shawn

Hi Shawn

Thank you for going to the trouble of responding. I'm afraid however that it is a strawman response. What the deposition does, is to confirm that Nicholas Bacon said, or believed, that his great grandmother in law was Cecily Neville. That adds virtually no value to the 1632 Pedigree, since no one has alleged that Nicholas Bacon did not say or believe that. The deposition does not add any weight to the assertions made in the 1632 Pedigree since it does not allow us to test the accuracy of the claims it advances about the Westons' ancestry - the actual issue under consideration.

My responses above are not mere assumptions, they are facts and logical arguments based on those facts. If I may summarise your response: "Despite having raised this issue in a public forum, I won't engage with any criticisms here but instead try to get you to buy my book". I find your approach strange: you advance a number of weak, circumstantial or circular arguments (ie 1 to 8 above), at least one of which was thoroughly disproved 8 years ago, and imply that you are hiding some killer evidence in your book. I am left concluding that you do not accept that the 1566 brass at Rugeley was a later production, and that the 1608-1622 Weston pedigree with its variances from the 1632 production does not trouble you for some reason that you are not prepared to reveal here.

Perhaps you could cite one false assumption, mistake or erroneous notion that I have advanced or repeated in my post?

I also presume in your book that you have addressed the Weston pedigree in the 1634 Visitation of London? This is an interesting one, since it adds to our knowledge of the Weston family of Prested Hall, showing that Richard, the younger son of Richard Weston of Prested Hall and Colchester (d c1542) was a clergyman, the incumbent of Shotley, Suffolk (confirmed by a grant from 1583 - TNA, LR 14/922/7, part of a series of deeds dealing with the inheritance of property at Colchester) and neither the clothier of that name of East Bergholt ff 1560 as asserted here some years ago, nor Sir Richard the judge (d 1572). Part of the interest is that, like many Visitation pedigrees, the deponent (William Weston) *did not know the name of his own grandfather*, calling him "John Weston", when contemporary documentation proves that his name was Richard.

Just for clarity, I have no problem at all with genealogical theories being proposed, advanced and defended. But to date, nothing I have seen has convinced me (and I have zero vested interest in whether the Weston were all one kin, whether Joan Neville existed etc); on the contrary, all I see are red flags, and it troubles me that so much effort is being put into placing this on the public record when it is not as clear cut as is being asserted.

Kind regards

Mark

I have not studied heraldry so I'm unsure of the answer to this question.
However, Anne de Holland who married John 1st Baron Neville, was the sole heiress of her brother Henry
Meanwhile Catherine Halton who married Sir Roger Booth of Sawley, was the heiress of her father
Would this not give *all* their descendants the right to put these arms on any of their own sheilas?

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 2:19:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have not studied heraldry so I'm unsure of the answer to this question.
> However, Anne de Holland who married John 1st Baron Neville, was the sole heiress of her brother Henry
> Meanwhile Catherine Halton who married Sir Roger Booth of Sawley, was the heiress of her father
> Would this not give *all* their descendants the right to put these arms on any of their own sheilas?

Assuming the above statements are true, all the legitimate male line descendants of John Neville and Anne Holland would have the right to quarter the Holland arms, along with the Neville arms.

All the legitimate male line descendants of Roger Booth and Catherine Halton would have the right to quarter the Halton arms, along with the Booth arms.

If any of these legitimate male line descendants left only a legitimate heiress or coheiresses, then that (co)heiress would pass the right to quarter those arms (eg Neville + Holland) to their own legitimate male line descendants. NB any display of quarterings is entirely optional, not obligatory, except that normally you may only display a quartering if you also display the quartering that "brings it in" (eg you cannot display Holland without first displaying Neville).

I am also presuming that "sheila" here should read "shield" :-)

Mark

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:29:24 PM UTC-8, shp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 10:48:34 AM UTC-5, Shawn Potter 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
>
> Group,
>
> My wife and I congratulate Joe Cochoit for discovering two independent copies of item 8 above in the archives of the College of Arms. These independent copies are identical to the record that is included in the Weston pedigree supporting documentation. These independent copies confirm the authenticity of the Weston pedigree document. See our book for other examples of independent records that authenticate Weston pedigree documentation. An image of the document can be found on page 108 of our book.
>
> The document is a deposition by Nicholas Bacon for creation of a funeral certificate for his father-in-law, James Weston, Knt., Baron of the Exchequer. It was not created to support the Weston pedigree. In part, Nicholas Bacon stated: “Iames Weston of Lichefeild in the county of Staff: gent’ [was the] fourth sonne of Iohn Weston by Cecilie his wife daughter of Rafe Neuile Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland.” Henry Chitting, Chester Herald of the College of Arms, certified Nicholas Bacon’s statement.
>
> Good work, Joe. We just credited you for making this discovery in an update to our book.
>
> Shawn

Will you cite the exact reference to this funeral certificate for James Weston?
I do not have that and would appreciate the citation.
Thanks

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

The Funeral Certificate of Sir James Weston, 1633, MSS F.C.3/180 and I.23/72, College of Arms, 130 Queen Victoria St., London, UK. F.C.3/180 is the original draft; and I.23/72 is a finer copy subsequently made for consultation at the College of Arms. Both are essentially identical to each other (minor spelling variations excepted), as well as essentially identical to the document in the Weston pedigree. An image of the document included as part of the Weston pedigree documentation is found in our book on page 108.

It has been said that his James Weston's daughter Anne was "heiress" of her father, but his will shows clearly that she was dead, so more properly "heiress in her issue".

Her only surviving child was Anne Bacon, apparently not yet married when James Weston made his will 4 Nov 1632, as he provides money "for her marriage" which she soon did to John /Roos/ of Henham Hall, co Suff; Knt and 1st Bnt 12C2

There is another curious thing in this will I'm trying to ferret out
Does anyone know where exactly this James Weston fits into the broader Weston pedigree?

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> It has been said that his James Weston's daughter Anne was "heiress" of her father, but his will shows clearly that she was dead, so more properly "heiress in her issue".
>
> Her only surviving child was Anne Bacon, apparently not yet married when James Weston made his will 4 Nov 1632, as he provides money "for her marriage" which she soon did to John /Roos/ of Henham Hall, co Suff; Knt and 1st Bnt 12C2
>
> There is another curious thing in this will I'm trying to ferret out
> Does anyone know where exactly this James Weston fits into the broader Weston pedigree?

In a complete surprise I noted that this James West calls himself "of Castle Camps", a place I'd never heard
And in his will, he repeats a few times that she is not yet sixteen? or fifteen? it's hard to make out
And then without prejudice I found the baptism of Anne which I'd previously overlooked

18 Feb 1620 Castle Camps, co Camb

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:23:58 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > It has been said that his James Weston's daughter Anne was "heiress" of her father, but his will shows clearly that she was dead, so more properly "heiress in her issue".
> >
> > Her only surviving child was Anne Bacon, apparently not yet married when James Weston made his will 4 Nov 1632, as he provides money "for her marriage" which she soon did to John /Roos/ of Henham Hall, co Suff; Knt and 1st Bnt 12C2
> >
> > There is another curious thing in this will I'm trying to ferret out
> > Does anyone know where exactly this James Weston fits into the broader Weston pedigree?
> In a complete surprise I noted that this James West calls himself "of Castle Camps", a place I'd never heard
> And in his will, he repeats a few times that she is not yet sixteen? or fifteen? it's hard to make out
> And then without prejudice I found the baptism of Anne which I'd previously overlooked
>
> 18 Feb 1620 Castle Camps, co Camb

Recte: James WESTON for James West in my above

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:26:40 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:23:58 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > It has been said that his James Weston's daughter Anne was "heiress" of her father, but his will shows clearly that she was dead, so more properly "heiress in her issue".
> > >
> > > Her only surviving child was Anne Bacon, apparently not yet married when James Weston made his will 4 Nov 1632, as he provides money "for her marriage" which she soon did to John /Roos/ of Henham Hall, co Suff; Knt and 1st Bnt 12C2
> > >
> > > There is another curious thing in this will I'm trying to ferret out
> > > Does anyone know where exactly this James Weston fits into the broader Weston pedigree?
> > In a complete surprise I noted that this James West calls himself "of Castle Camps", a place I'd never heard
> > And in his will, he repeats a few times that she is not yet sixteen? or fifteen? it's hard to make out
> > And then without prejudice I found the baptism of Anne which I'd previously overlooked
> >
> > 18 Feb 1620 Castle Camps, co Camb
> Recte: James WESTON for James West in my above

Sir James Weston was buried 15 Dec 1633 Castle Camps

"The Judges of England" (even though he wasn't a judge) has an entry for him and calls his wife Mary Weston, daughter of William Weston of Kent, esq.

She does not appear in his will so I suppose Mary was already dead
But who is this father of hers? Where does he goes in the Weston pedigree?

This source also states that James was the son of James Weston (d1589) by Margery Lowe (d1587)
And that he was entered at the Inner Temple "three years after his father's death"