On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:27:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:24:29 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Very interesting, Todd. Looking at the Sandes/Sondes/at Sende pedigree
> > right now ... ancestral names in the chart would seem to be Russell, Dod,
> > Guildford, Urrey, de Deane, Cheyney, and Towne.
> >
> > Maybe someone can do more with this.
> From the Visitations alone, I develop the following AT for Thomazin (Fisher) Epes:
>
> 1. Thomazin Fisher
> 2. Alexander Fisher
> 3. Katherine Maplesden
> 4. John Fisher
> 5. Thomazin Bettenham
> 6. Peter Maplesden
> 7. Joan Gay
> 8. William Fisher of Maidstone
> 9. ( ) Friar
> 10. William Bettenham
> 11. Agnes Sandes
> 12. John Maplesden
> 13. Anne Miller
> 14. Thomas Gay, note A.
> 18. John Friar
> 20. John Bettenham
> 21. ( ) Yue
> 22. William Sandes of Lingfield
> 23. Elizabeth Towne
> 24. Thomas Maplesden of Cheveney in Morden (sic)
> 26. John Miller
> 40. Stephen Bettenham of Cranbro
> 41. Helwise Baker
> 44. Richard Sonds als Sandes of Alfricheston, Sussex
> 45. Paulina Dene
> 46. Thomas at Towne, note B
> 47. Joan Cheyney, note C
> 48. John Maplesden of Cheveney on Marden (sic)
> 82. William Baker
> 88. Richard Sonde
> 89. Elizabeth Urrey
> 90. John/Robert Dene of Alfricheston, Sussex, note B
> 91. Alice Cheyney
> 92. Thomas at Towne
> 93. Bennitt (i.e. Benedicta) Detling note D
> 94. William/Richard Cheyney of Sheppey
> 96. John Maplesden of Goudhurst
> 176. Richard Sonde
> 177. Maude Guldford
> 178. John Urrey
> 180. Robert de Dene
> 181. ( ) Chelwyke
> 182. Robert Cheney of Manwood, Sussex
> 186. John Detling
> 187. Joan de Shelving
> 192. John Maplesden of Maplesden
> 352. Robart at Sende als Sande
> 353. Alice Dod
> 354. Richard Guldford
> 362. ( ) Chelwyke of Grane
> 363. ( ) Podinden
> 374. John de Shelving
> 375. ( ) Denne
> 384. Henry Maplesden of Maplesden in Bennenden
> 704. Walter at Sende
> 705. Maude Rushall/Russall
> 706. Gilbert Dod
> 750. William Denne note E
> 751. ( ) Gatton
> 1408. Adam at Sende
> 1409. ( ) Saband
> 1410. Richard Rushall/Russall
> 1500. William Denne
> 1502. Giles Gatton
> 2816. Henry at Sende
> 2818. Peter Saband
> 3000. Richard Deane
> 3001. ( ) Staingarche
> 6002. Richard Staingarche
>
> Note A. the 1619 Maplesden pedigree says Joan Gay, wife of Peter Maplesden was daughter of Thomas and bore "G. 3 lions Ramp. 2 & 1 between 5 cross crossletts ffichy Ar." This is clearly a variant of the coat described in the 1574 Gay pedigree, "Gules crusily or, three lions rampant argent", yet the color of the crosses is different. If this is a simple error in the Maplesden pedigree, then this could be the Thomas who heads the Gay pedigree, yet the chronology doesn't really work for this to have been the case. The Maplesden pedigree Thomas Gay is three generations back from the 1619 informant, while the Gay pedigree's Thomas is 3 generations back from the 1574 informant. This appears to be a different branch of the family.
>
> Note B. Here I follow the 1574 Visitation, which agrees with the account of Thomas Town in History of Parliament. The 1592 Visitation adds another generation, making the Thomas who married Cheyney the grandfather of Elizabeth via another intervening Thomas. The 1592 Visitation also inserts an extra John Dene between the John who married a Cheyney and Paulina, also named John.
>
> Note C. The 1566 Bedford Cheyney pedigree shows in the first generation John Cheyney of Sheppey having a daughter married to Thomas at Towne. This is too far back to be reliable in detail, but the family clearly retained a memory of this marriage. Notably, it shows her as sister of Sir William, husband of the daughter of Sallare. Clearly this last is William, husband of Eleanor Salerne. However, HOP shows Thomas Town to have married the daughter of this William, yet the chronology is tight. It looks like William married immediately before 1405, while his supposed son-in-law is last seen in 1420, and had three daughters. It is possible, but I am wondering if the Bedford pedigree (and the correction to the Kent pedigree that makes her daughter to Richard, Sir William's true father) isn't the more accurate over HOP..
>
> Note D. Several accounts refer to this marriage, calling Thomas' father-in-law as John Brampton alias Detling. These accounts skip the generation with the Cheyney marriage, making the Brampton/Detling heiress mother of Elizabeth (Towne) Sondes as well as two other daughters. THi is clearly wrong, as shown by this pedigree:
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t6542rp7k;view=1up;seq=381
> Benedicta Detling/Brampton would remarry to #40, Stephen Betenham, after the death of Thomas at Towne in 1403. For her see the end of this:
> http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/Vol.015%20-%201883/015-01.pdf
> Reference is made here to the will of Benedicta de Betenham:
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc2.ark:/13960/t33201b1m;view=1up;seq=210
>
> Note E. Berry's Kent Pedigrees shows a William Dene marrying a Gatton heiress, but the father is given a different name, and he had a son, not the daughter and heir given in the visitation, so either this is just coincidence or there is some flaw in the pedigree at this point.
>
> taf

I have information from unpublished documents obtained from the Kent archives on extending/fixing the pedigree assembled from visitations. For the Cheyne piece, you are already aware of an upcoming TAG article by Nathan Murphy:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/trep5Ej31hs/m/UxFqZ8adBAAJ

However, possibly an interesting piece to look at (and this forum perhaps appropriate?) is to look at the ancestry of Benedicta (Detling/Brampton)(Towne) Bettenham. Her will gives the needed evidence on how to fix published errors (for example, Hasted) in her next couple of generations, based on the many manors she owned; parsing out which of her ancestors she got them from seems to be straightforward. Of particular note, I believe it can be demonstrated she is a descendant of Ranulf de Broc/Stephen de Thurnham. Not only supported by following the inheritance of manors, but a Sondes deed of a later manor clearly laid out the de Dene's and Gatton's (ipms went away at the point when Thomas de Dene successfully sued the king and had it released to him, so it would seem Thomas did this on all his manors). Please let me know if interested.