On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:42:19 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-7, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > per Davis again: "The pedigree credits his son Thomas to his first wife,
> > but it would seem that the mother of his daughter Elizabeth was either the
> > second or third, inasmuch as Elizabeth was m. abt 1594 and had a child born
> > as late as 1614." Given that last date, it would seem Elizabeth is the d.
> > of Susan, if Susan was the 3rd and last wife.
> I think Davis is wrong here. We have two conflicting versions of the pedigree, one deriving the one child shown from the first wife, Margaret Rice, with Susan Brand as the third, the other showing the children as belonging to first wife Susan Brand, with Margaret Rice as the third. Davis has taken a mix and match approach, making Margret the first wife and mother of heir Thomas, while making Elizabeth daughter of third wife Susan. However, if the form of the pedigree reported by Evidences is taken as the authentic version, then the problem evaporates - Elizabeth and Thomas could be children of first wife Susan Brand, with Elizabeth North and Margaret Rice following..
>
> Along these lines, looking at familysearch I find a marriage in 1574 at Colchester between Thomas Cooke and Elizabeth Northye, which I think has to be that of Thomas and "Elizabeth North of Colchester" described in the visitation as the second wife. This would set up a chronology of Thomas Cooke m..1 1568, Susan Brand, with children b. 1569-1573, m.2 1574, Elizabeth Northy, and sometime after that m.3 Margaret Rice.
>
> I note there was a George Northye who was Town Lecturer of Colchester in 1580, but would be suspended in 1583 by the Bishop of London for refusing to subscribe to the articles. He died in 1593.
>
> Regarding the Brand family, there are two handy time points. Sir John Brand was admitted to Gray's Inn 1608. His heir was his uncle John, whose son, also named John, married in 1618. That puts this generation b. ca. 1590, and the previous generation, Robert and John Brand of Boxford, born in the 1560s, hence of the generation after Susan Brand of Boxford. As usual, such back-of-the-envelope estimations can be off.
>
> taf

This assessment seems correct. There are Suffolk feet of fines which mention Thomas Cooke and his wife Margaret beginning in 1579. That fine certainly appears to be for the correct Thomas Cooke, since it involved as plaintiffs Thomas Cooke and Henry Syday (with wife Anne) vs. Geoffrey Syday for properties in Alphamstone, Bures St. Mary, and Lamarshe.

From John Syday's 1539 will, it would seem Henry could be Thomas Cooke's brother-in-law. Based on John Syday calling John Wyncoll of Bures his nephew, and a visitation of that family, it might appear John Syday's father was named William (John did name a son William). The Quedwell(Codwell) connection seems possible to determine since the 1591 will of John Quedwell makes Thomas Cooke of Pedmershe, his cousin, the executor and notes Thomas Cooke's children are Thomas (his godson) and Elizabeth (i.e., the one who would marry Edmund Reade a few years after); John Quedwell also states his father was named John. Feet of fines help identify wives names of this Quedwell family.

Regarding the Brand(Bronde) family, there is an extensive pedigree of this family that I obtained from the Suffolk RO, though unfortunately does not mention a Cooke marriage. It lists the children of Ann and Richard Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1590) as: John Bronde (b. 1534, m. Mary Luffkey 28 Oct 1559), Peter Bronde of Bildeston (obit. 1615, m. Johann Sadler 26 Sep 1562), William Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1600, m. Susan Chaplyn 10 Oct 1563), and Richard Bronde (obit. 1595/7, m. Rose Veysey 3 Nov 1563). It is peculiar no daughters are mentioned, but since the 1590 will is available at the Suffolk RO, it might be worth investigating, as the chronology would work. Also, several of these Bronde sons named daughters Susan. John Bronde's 1611 will is extensive and perhaps might mention the Cooke family somewhere.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > Along these lines, looking at familysearch I find a marriage in 1574 at Colchester between Thomas Cooke and Elizabeth Northye, which I think has to be that of Thomas and "Elizabeth North of Colchester" described in the visitation as the second wife. This would set up a chronology of Thomas Cooke m.1 1568, Susan Brand, with children b. 1569-1573, m.2 1574, Elizabeth Northy, and sometime after that m.3 Margaret Rice.

> This assessment seems correct. There are Suffolk feet of fines which mention Thomas Cooke and his wife Margaret beginning in 1579. That fine certainly appears to be for the correct Thomas Cooke, since it involved as plaintiffs Thomas Cooke and Henry Syday (with wife Anne) vs. Geoffrey Syday for properties in Alphamstone, Bures St. Mary, and Lamarshe.
>

Thanks for this. It is always good to have speculation replaced with data. (Plus it is good to see one's instincts weren't leading them astray).

> Regarding the Brand(Bronde) family, there is an extensive pedigree of this family that I obtained from the Suffolk RO, though unfortunately does not mention a Cooke marriage. It lists the children of Ann and Richard Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1590) as: John Bronde (b. 1534, m. Mary Luffkey 28 Oct 1559), Peter Bronde of Bildeston (obit. 1615, m. Johann Sadler 26 Sep 1562), William Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1600, m. Susan Chaplyn 10 Oct 1563), and Richard Bronde (obit. 1595/7, m. Rose Veysey 3 Nov 1563). It is peculiar no daughters are mentioned, but since the 1590 will is available at the Suffolk RO, it might be worth investigating, as the chronology would work. Also, several of these Bronde sons named daughters Susan. John Bronde's 1611 will is extensive and perhaps might mention the Cooke family somewhere.

I looked at Suffolk Bronde wills a few months after this was discussed back in 2016, and found absolutely nothing useful to divining the Cooke connection. Those I consulted were:

John Bronde 1468
John Bronde 1480
Peter Bronde 1552
Richard Bronde 1590
Richard Bronde 1595
(John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
Mary Brand 1617
Martha Bronde 1619
Richard Brand 1639
John Brand 1677
Elisabeth Brond 1681

Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.

taf

Those I consulted were:
>
> John Bronde 1468
> John Bronde 1480
> Peter Bronde 1552
> Richard Bronde 1590
> Richard Bronde 1595
> (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> Mary Brand 1617
> Martha Bronde 1619
> Richard Brand 1639
> John Brand 1677
> Elisabeth Brond 1681
>
> Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
>
> taf

Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.

I also thought it might be worthwhile mentioning why the 1561 will of Joan (Syday) Cooke of Pebmarsh possibly had Sewells witness it. Also her father John Syday left things to Sewalls and his will was witnessed by one, so I thought looking into a little. Those families were associated with another beginning in 1456 (449/2/673).

My conclusion was Joan's son Robert Cooke [Jr.], which Davis had limited information on, married a Sewell, since he is called a "brother" in John Sewell's will:

http://www.thekingscandlesticks.com/webs/pedigrees/11586.html

https://archive.org/details/ancestryofbethia00davi/page/86/mode/2up

It does not seem there were many Sewell's at Pembarsh in 1523 to get confused on their ancestry.

Document reference: E 179/108/163
Date: 1523

Location: Pedmarsh
[Selected people and tax paid]
John Syday 26s 4d
Robert Coke 4d
John Cooke 5s
John Sewalle 12d
Robert Syday 2s
Katherine Sydaye widow 12d
John Syday junior 4d

Location: Alphamstone
Thomas Syday 6s
John Sewall 4s
John Syday 4s

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> Those I consulted were:
> >
> > John Bronde 1468
> > John Bronde 1480
> > Peter Bronde 1552
> > Richard Bronde 1590
> > Richard Bronde 1595
> > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > Mary Brand 1617
> > Martha Bronde 1619
> > Richard Brand 1639
> > John Brand 1677
> > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> >
> > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.

> Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
>
I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617

I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.

taf

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > Those I consulted were:
> > >
> > > John Bronde 1468
> > > John Bronde 1480
> > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > John Brand 1677
> > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > >
> > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> >
> I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
>
> I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
>
> taf

I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:08:31 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > > Those I consulted were:
> > > >
> > > > John Bronde 1468
> > > > John Bronde 1480
> > > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > > John Brand 1677
> > > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > > >
> > > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> > >
> > I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
> >
> > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> >
> > taf
> I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?

Unclear what you are asking. If you mean whether this 'Edmund' is Thomas of Pedmarch, that seems unlikely as we have two separate wills referring to a (the same?) man of this name. If you mean whether I view Edmund as of the Pedmarch family or a different Cooke family, there is no way to tell.

taf

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:24:26 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:08:31 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > > > Those I consulted were:
> > > > >
> > > > > John Bronde 1468
> > > > > John Bronde 1480
> > > > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > > > John Brand 1677
> > > > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > > > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> > > >
> > > I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
> > >
> > > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> > >
> > > taf
> > I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?
> Unclear what you are asking. If you mean whether this 'Edmund' is Thomas of Pedmarch, that seems unlikely as we have two separate wills referring to a (the same?) man of this name. If you mean whether I view Edmund as of the Pedmarch family or a different Cooke family, there is no way to tell.
>
> taf

I thought Edmund in the Bronde will might be a mistake for Thomas, but, as you say, the name is Edmund in two wills, so not likely.

>
> I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
>
> taf

From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> >
> > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> >
> > taf
> From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.

Hmmm. It never sits well to pick as the true mother the only wife not attributed any children by our sources, but with so few and those contradictory, anything is possible I guess.

I found an abstract of the will (1593) of Rev George Northey of Colchester buried in a Google Books preview. It says he left legacies to his wife's children by a former husband, Mary and Anne Challenor, and to his own children by her, Thomas, Nathanial and Sarah, with residual legatees being the children of his brothers-in-law Ricahrd Byrde and John Clere. Nothing of seeming value here.

taf

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:25:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > >
> > > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> > >
> > > taf
> > From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.
> Hmmm. It never sits well to pick as the true mother the only wife not attributed any children by our sources, but with so few and those contradictory, anything is possible I guess.
>
> I found an abstract of the will (1593) of Rev George Northey of Colchester buried in a Google Books preview. It says he left legacies to his wife's children by a former husband, Mary and Anne Challenor, and to his own children by her, Thomas, Nathanial and Sarah, with residual legatees being the children of his brothers-in-law Ricahrd Byrde and John Clere. Nothing of seeming value here.
>
> taf

I understand what you mean. All I meant was I know Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter was unmarried in 1592. Davis attributes her marriage in 1594, probably based on baptism of first child. Just assuming she would have been around aged 20, thus born c1574, makes either Brand or Northey seem possible.

If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.

Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:

> If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.

We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.

All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.

This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.

taf

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
>
> > If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> > The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> > Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.
> We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.
>
> All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.
>
> This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.
>
> taf

Returning to the original point of this thread, who are the following persons mentioned in Newport's _Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale londinense_?

[concerning Woodham Mortimer, Essex] "In 1567, William Twytton or Twydid preſented twice, in right of Margaret his Wife, late Wife of John Church Gent. to which John Church and Margaret, I find in 6 Eliz. by the Queens Licence, this Mannor of Wodeham-Mortimer was alienated by Leonard Sandell ...."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433003000647&view=1up&seq=700&q1=twytton

The Church family ancestral to the Reades who intermarried with Epes included a John Church with a (second) wife Margaret at Runwell, not too far (maybe 5 or 6 miles) from Woodham Mortimer.

Anyone have ideas about the actual surname of Margaret's second husband? I'm not finding other Twyttons or Twydid in Essex, though there are some Twytts and Tweeds.

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:12:23 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> >
> > > If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> > > The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> > > Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.
> > We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.
> >
> > All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.
> >
> > This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.
> >
> > taf
> Returning to the original point of this thread, who are the following persons mentioned in Newport's _Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale londinense_?
>
> [concerning Woodham Mortimer, Essex] "In 1567, William Twytton or Twydid preſented twice, in right of Margaret his Wife, late Wife of John Church Gent. to which John Church and Margaret, I find in 6 Eliz. by the Queens Licence, this Mannor of Wodeham-Mortimer was alienated by Leonard Sandell ...."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433003000647&view=1up&seq=700&q1=twytton
>
> The Church family ancestral to the Reades who intermarried with Epes included a John Church with a (second) wife Margaret at Runwell, not too far (maybe 5 or 6 miles) from Woodham Mortimer.
>
> Anyone have ideas about the actual surname of Margaret's second husband? I'm not finding other Twyttons or Twydid in Essex, though there are some Twytts and Tweeds.

Walter Goodwin Davis speculated that Leonard Sandell was a connection of the Sandells who intermarried with Lakes behind the John Lake who married Margaret Reade:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066158148&view=1up&seq=81&q1=leonard%20sandell

--Thomas Legat.
-- Edmund Churche of Northants.
--The manor of Runwell Hall , leased by Colet , dean , and the chapter , of St. Paul's , to William Ailoffe and assigned by John Gaynsford , knight , and Alice , his wife , late the wife of the said William, to complainant.
--Essex.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/-fMMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche+of%22+northants+runwell&pg=PA406&printsec=frontco

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:48:37 AM UTC-4, JBrand wrote:
> --Thomas Legat.
> -- Edmund Churche of Northants.
> --The manor of Runwell Hall , leased by Colet , dean , and the chapter , of St. Paul's , to William Ailoffe and assigned by John Gaynsford , knight , and Alice , his wife , late the wife of the said William, to complainant.
> --Essex.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/-fMMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche+of%22+northants+runwell&pg=PA406&printsec=frontco

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/bB4RAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche%22+-edmund%27s&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover