PA Correction: Edith Twyneho, Wife of Sir William Dennys (c.1470-1533)

[Brad Verity]

In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false

Douglas's source for this was no doubt the Dennis pedigree in the 1623 Visitation of Gloucestershire, which states, "Sr Wm. Dennys K. = Edith d. of .... Twinihoe", with a daughter "[Anne s.p'le--Harl. 1041.]":
http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationofcoun00inchit#page/50/mode/2up

Note that the 1623 Visitation does NOT state that Edith was Sir William's second wife, nor that Lady Anne Berkeley was his first, though Douglas quotes the Visitation pedigree as saying so within his source citations.

Yesterday I was delighted to stumble upon the fact that Volume 3 of the CIPM Henry VII series is available online. This is a book that is not on the shelves at the UCLA Library, nor is it anywhere to be found here in Vancouver. In it are two IPMs for Sir William's father, Sir Walter Dennys, one taken in Gloucester, presumably in 1505 (the original has been torn), and the other taken in Dorset on 18 October 21 Henry VII [1505]. Neither are cited by Douglas as sources.

Both IPMs mention the marriage settlement of William Dennys to Edith Twyneho in 21 Edward IV, with the Dorset one being in good enough shape to give the full particulars: "And by charter dated the eve of St. Thomas the Apostle, 21 Edward IV. gave it [a moiety of the manor of Lutton] to Master Christopher Twynyho, clerk, John Twynyho, William Twynyho, John Walsshe, Thomas de la Lynde, William Lovell and Thomas Warner, esquires, to hold to them and their heirs to the use of William Denys, then his son and heir apparent, and of Edith, William's wife, and of the heirs of their bodies, and in default of such issue to the use of the said William Denys and his heirs":
http://archive.org/stream/calendarofinquis03great#page/96/mode/2up

So the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho took place on 2 July 1481, which necessarily makes her his first wife. William was returned as age 35 and more in both of his father's IPMs, so born by 1470. Edith his wife was likely close to him in age.

The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475. Though the pedigree does not identify his wife, we know she was Jane Corbet, daughter of Sir Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet (c.1415-1467) and Elizabeth Hopton (1427-1498), later countess of Worcester. The marriage settlement of John Twyneho and Jane Corbet took place on 13 April 1464, and their younger son George Twyneho was returned as age 25 in his elder brother Roger's 1497 IPMs, so was born about 1472. Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up

It should be noted that this Twinyho pedigree was not one taken at either the 1551 or 1573 Visitations of Somerset, but rather was added in (along with others) by editor Frederic William Weaver, taken from a series of unpublished manuscripts in the British Museum, "Richard Mundy's amalgamation of the Visitations of 1573, 1591 and 1623." I've not yet had any luck verifying these Twyneho-Montfort and Montfort-Ludlow marriages, and they may well be erroneous.

Whether Sir William Dennys and Edith Twyneho actually had a daughter Anne is not certain. in 1481 at their marriage settlement, William was only age 11 or so, and the 1623 Visitation of Gloucestershire pedigrees are notorious for containing error in the medieval generations. Perhaps Sir William's own IPM, taken in January 1535, would shed some light, but sadly, the Henry VIII IPMs have not yet been published.

Cheers, ------Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:05:39 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false

The will of the 5th Lord Berkeley is cited as a source by Douglas for Sir William Dennys & Anne Berkeley in both the 2004 & 2011 editions. It's curious no mention is made that Anne was alive when it was made. As her husband Sir William died a mere six months later, on 22 June 1533, there was no time for him to have made any marriage after Anne Berkeley.

Hopefully, Sir William's IPM, not taken until 1535, will reveal if Anne his wife survived him. It may help to determine her date of death.

Anne Berkeley is one of two gateway ancestors providing an undisputed Edward I descent for the three Deighton sisters who immigrated to New England in the 1630s. The proposed Edward III descent for Anne's husband Sir William Dennys through Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter Jane Stradling is suggestive, and far from conclusive. No 15th, 16th or even 17th-century document or pedigree has ever shown this to be the case.

> The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475.
> Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
> http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up

The Wikipedia entry on Sir William Dennys transcribes a 1481 transaction from the Somerset Feet of Fines which further identifies the feoffees involved in the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho: "At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary between Cristofor Twynyho cleric, John Twynyho of Cirencestre esquire, William Twynyho of Shipton Solers esquire, John Tame of Fayreford esquire, Edmund Langeley of Sudyngton Langeley esquire, Thomas Delalynde of Clencheston esquire, John Walshe of Olveston esquire, William Lovell of Raffeston esquire, and Thomas Warner of Cirencestre esquire querents; and Walter Denys esquire and Agnes his wife deforciants"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys

The Wikipedia author identifies Edith as daughter of John Twyneho of Cirencester (d. 1485), and so a first cousin of the John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475) who married Jane Corbet. This is certainly possible, though it's also possible that John Twyneho of Cirencester was overseeing the marriage settlement of his great-niece, alongside her uncle William Tywneho of Shipton Solers (d. 1497) and uncles-by-marriage Thomas Delalynde of Winterborne Clenston & William Lovell of Raffeston, because her own father had died six years previous.

Cheers, --Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:05:39 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false

A related addition to the account of Sir William Dennys & his wives in Plantagenet Ancestry. In the 2011 edition (but not the 2004 edition), it is stated: "His wife, Anne [Berkeley], was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)." This is correct, but she was living far later than that.

She was named in a remainder made by her brother Thomas, 5th Lord Berkeley, in his will dated 11 January 1533: “My manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Cyledy, Dalby, Chaucomb, Coldoverton, with the park of Coldoverton, and my manors of Moultsorrer…remainder to my sister Anne Denys”
http://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n277/mode/2up

The will of the 5th Lord Berkeley is cited as a source by Douglas for Sir William Dennys & Anne Berkeley in both the 2004 & 2011 editions. It's curious no mention is made that Anne was alive and named in it. As her husband Sir William died a mere six months later, on 22 June 1533, there was no time for him to have made any marriage after Anne Berkeley.

Hopefully, Sir William's IPM, not taken until January 1535, will reveal if Anne his wife survived him. It may help to determine her date of death.

Anne Berkeley is one of two gateway ancestors providing an undisputed Edward I descent for the three Deighton sisters who immigrated to New England in the 1630s. The proposed Edward III descent for Anne's husband Sir William Dennys through Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter Jane Stradling is suggestive, and far from conclusive. No 15th, 16th or even 17th-century document or pedigree has ever shown this to be the case.

> The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475.
> Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
> http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up

The Wikipedia entry on Sir William Dennys transcribes a 1481 transaction from the Somerset Feet of Fines which further identifies the feoffees involved in the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho: "At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary between Cristofor Twynyho cleric, John Twynyho of Cirencestre esquire, William Twynyho of Shipton Solers esquire, John Tame of Fayreford esquire, Edmund Langeley of Sudyngton Langeley esquire, Thomas Delalynde of Clencheston esquire, John Walshe of Olveston esquire, William Lovell of Raffeston esquire, and Thomas Warner of Cirencestre esquire querents; and Walter Denys esquire and Agnes his wife deforciants"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys

The Wikipedia author identifies Edith as daughter of John Twyneho of Cirencester (d. 1485), and so a first cousin of the John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475) who married Jane Corbet. This is certainly possible, though it's also possible that John Twyneho of Cirencester was overseeing the marriage settlement of his great-niece, alongside her uncle William Tywneho of Shipton Solers (d. 1497) and uncles-by-marriage Thomas Delalynde of Winterborne Clenston & William Lovell of Raffeston, because her own father had died six years previous.

Cheers, --Brad

[Steve Riggan]

In reading this information, it brought up something I remembered reading several months ago but can't remember where. This is slightly OT but I'll ask anyway. Sir William Dennis had a gateway descendant in America, Thomas Ligon, d. 1675. I read somewhere that his parentage might be in question because it had NOT been proven for sure that he was "the" Thomas Ligon, son of Thomas Lygon and Elizabeth Pratt of the Madresfield Lygon family. I have looked back at old discussions on this and did not see if the matter was resolved or not. Thomas Ligon was an ancestor of Gary Boyd Roberts and the actress Uma Thurman. Quite possibly, I also have a descent from him through Sarah Ligon, wife of Richard Grills of Henrico Co., VA but that is a line in progress. The Grills line is one that I shared with one of our late newsgroup members, Brice Clagett, and he felt reasonably sure, from my last conversation with him several years ago, that Sarah Ligon was indeed in our lineage and our connection to Thomas Ligon the gateway. If this line has been truly validated, as I expect it would be with Gary Boyd Roberts' having researched it, Thomas Ligon was a descendant of Sir William Dennis and his second wife Anne Berkeley as proven out by Brad's research in these threads. Thanks for the information, Brad. I have not used the archives much and would like to know how I access it to read up on the most recent findings of Thomas Ligon's parentage and if the matter of his royal descent has been proven.
Thanks.
Steve Riggan

> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: PA Correction: Edith Twyneho, Wife of Sir William Dennys (c.1470-1533)
> From: ***@hotmail.com
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:05:39 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> > In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
> > http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false
>
> A related addition to the account of Sir William Dennys & his wives in Plantagenet Ancestry. In the 2011 edition (but not the 2004 edition), it is stated: "His wife, Anne [Berkeley], was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)." This is correct, but she was living far later than that.
>
> She was named in a remainder made by her brother Thomas, 5th Lord Berkeley, in his will dated 11 January 1533: “My manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Cyledy, Dalby, Chaucomb, Coldoverton, with the park of Coldoverton, and my manors of Moultsorrer…remainder to my sister Anne Denys”
> http://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n277/mode/2up
>
> The will of the 5th Lord Berkeley is cited as a source by Douglas for Sir William Dennys & Anne Berkeley in both the 2004 & 2011 editions. It's curious no mention is made that Anne was alive and named in it. As her husband Sir William died a mere six months later, on 22 June 1533, there was no time for him to have made any marriage after Anne Berkeley.
>
> Hopefully, Sir William's IPM, not taken until January 1535, will reveal if Anne his wife survived him. It may help to determine her date of death.
>
> Anne Berkeley is one of two gateway ancestors providing an undisputed Edward I descent for the three Deighton sisters who immigrated to New England in the 1630s. The proposed Edward III descent for Anne's husband Sir William Dennys through Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter Jane Stradling is suggestive, and far from conclusive. No 15th, 16th or even 17th-century document or pedigree has ever shown this to be the case.
>
> > The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475.
> > Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
> > http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up
>
> The Wikipedia entry on Sir William Dennys transcribes a 1481 transaction from the Somerset Feet of Fines which further identifies the feoffees involved in the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho: "At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary between Cristofor Twynyho cleric, John Twynyho of Cirencestre esquire, William Twynyho of Shipton Solers esquire, John Tame of Fayreford esquire, Edmund Langeley of Sudyngton Langeley esquire, Thomas Delalynde of Clencheston esquire, John Walshe of Olveston esquire, William Lovell of Raffeston esquire, and Thomas Warner of Cirencestre esquire querents; and Walter Denys esquire and Agnes his wife deforciants"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys
>
> The Wikipedia author identifies Edith as daughter of John Twyneho of Cirencester (d. 1485), and so a first cousin of the John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475) who married Jane Corbet. This is certainly possible, though it's also possible that John Twyneho of Cirencester was overseeing the marriage settlement of his great-niece, alongside her uncle William Tywneho of Shipton Solers (d. 1497) and uncles-by-marriage Thomas Delalynde of Winterborne Clenston & William Lovell of Raffeston, because her own father had died six years previous.
>
> Cheers, --Brad
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Don Stone]

On 7/30/2013 6:44 PM, Steve Riggan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I have not used the archives much and would like to know how I access it to read up on the most recent findings of Thomas Ligon's parentage and if the matter of his royal descent has been proven.
> Thanks.
> Steve Riggan

Steve:

Go to the GEN-MEDIEVAL/soc.genealogy.medieval website,
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/, where the middle link (of
the five given on this page) tells about accessing the archives.

-- Don Stone

[j***@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:34:58 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:05:39 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> > In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
>
> > http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false
>
>
>
> A related addition to the account of Sir William Dennys & his wives in Plantagenet Ancestry. In the 2011 edition (but not the 2004 edition), it is stated: "His wife, Anne [Berkeley], was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)." This is correct, but she was living far later than that.
>
>
>
> She was named in a remainder made by her brother Thomas, 5th Lord Berkeley, in his will dated 11 January 1533: “My manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Cyledy, Dalby, Chaucomb, Coldoverton, with the park of Coldoverton, and my manors of Moultsorrer…remainder to my sister Anne Denys”
>
> http://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n277/mode/2up
>
>
>
> The will of the 5th Lord Berkeley is cited as a source by Douglas for Sir William Dennys & Anne Berkeley in both the 2004 & 2011 editions. It's curious no mention is made that Anne was alive and named in it. As her husband Sir William died a mere six months later, on 22 June 1533, there was no time for him to have made any marriage after Anne Berkeley.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, Sir William's IPM, not taken until January 1535, will reveal if Anne his wife survived him. It may help to determine her date of death.
>
>
>
> Anne Berkeley is one of two gateway ancestors providing an undisputed Edward I descent for the three Deighton sisters who immigrated to New England in the 1630s. The proposed Edward III descent for Anne's husband Sir William Dennys through Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter Jane Stradling is suggestive, and far from conclusive. No 15th, 16th or even 17th-century document or pedigree has ever shown this to be the case.
>
>
>
> > The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475.
>
> > Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
>
> > http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up
>
>
>
> The Wikipedia entry on Sir William Dennys transcribes a 1481 transaction from the Somerset Feet of Fines which further identifies the feoffees involved in the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho: "At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary between Cristofor Twynyho cleric, John Twynyho of Cirencestre esquire, William Twynyho of Shipton Solers esquire, John Tame of Fayreford esquire, Edmund Langeley of Sudyngton Langeley esquire, Thomas Delalynde of Clencheston esquire, John Walshe of Olveston esquire, William Lovell of Raffeston esquire, and Thomas Warner of Cirencestre esquire querents; and Walter Denys esquire and Agnes his wife deforciants"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys
>
>
>
> The Wikipedia author identifies Edith as daughter of John Twyneho of Cirencester (d. 1485), and so a first cousin of the John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475) who married Jane Corbet. This is certainly possible, though it's also possible that John Twyneho of Cirencester was overseeing the marriage settlement of his great-niece, alongside her uncle William Tywneho of Shipton Solers (d. 1497) and uncles-by-marriage Thomas Delalynde of Winterborne Clenston & William Lovell of Raffeston, because her own father had died six years previous.
>
>
>
> Cheers, --Brad

With respect to the last paragraph above, from the chronological information we have, it seems equally possible that Edith Twyneho/Twynyho/Twinyho (however you spell it!), the 1st wife of Sir William Dennys, could be a daughter of either John Twineho of Cirencester (d. 1485), MP from Bristol 1472-75 or his nephew John Twineho of Keyford (d. 1475), MP for Plympton 1472-75. But since the visitation pedigree of the Twineho family gives the younger John a daughter Edith married to someone else, I'd be inclined to provisionally assign this Edith to the elder John Twineho, of Cirencester, as the author of the Wikipedia article has done (it's unfortunate that he didn't give sources for this point).

OTOH I'm dubious about the Wikipedia article saying that Alice, wife of John Tame of Fairford, was the daughter of John Twineho of Cirencester. As she died in 1471 after having several children, chronologically she's more likely to be his sister rather than his daughter.

Wedgwood's HOP has biographies of the two Johns and also of the two Williams of this family - the elder William being brother of John T. of Cirencester and the younger William being brother of John T. of Keyford, nephew of the elder John. But Wedgwood really seems to mess up the relationships of John T. of Cirencester. He gives a different father to this John than is shown in the Vis. pedigree, although he agrees with the Vis. pedigree in assigning the father of the elder William T. He also says the John's wife was Eleanor, widow of Thomas Strangeways, which Eleanor was the daughter of Alice Stafford by his first husband Sir Edmund Cheyne. But pedigrees of the Tailboys family show the Strangeways marriage of Eleanor (but not the Twineho one) and say that Eleanor was a daughter of Alice Stafford by her 2nd husband Walter Tailboys, de jure 6th Lord Kyme.

Whether or not Alice Twineho Tame (mentioned in the Wikipedia article) was a daughter of John Twineho of Cirencester, she is an ancestor of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. And John Twineho of Cirencester himself, by two of his other daughters, is also an ancestor of Prince William.

[j***@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:35:33 PM UTC-7, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:34:58 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:05:39 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > In both the 2004 (p. 264) & 2011 (Vol. 1 p. 637) editions of Plantagenet Ancestry, is stated: "He [Sir William Dennis] married (2nd) Edith Twinihoe. They had one daughter Anne":
>
> >
>
> > > http://books.google.ca/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA637&dq=William+Dennis+(or+Denys),+Knt.,+of+Dirham,+Olveston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MN_3Uc-qBoTtigKE7YCADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=William%20Dennis%20(or%20Denys)%2C%20Knt.%2C%20of%20Dirham%2C%20Olveston&f=false
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A related addition to the account of Sir William Dennys & his wives in Plantagenet Ancestry. In the 2011 edition (but not the 2004 edition), it is stated: "His wife, Anne [Berkeley], was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)." This is correct, but she was living far later than that.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > She was named in a remainder made by her brother Thomas, 5th Lord Berkeley, in his will dated 11 January 1533: “My manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Cyledy, Dalby, Chaucomb, Coldoverton, with the park of Coldoverton, and my manors of Moultsorrer…remainder to my sister Anne Denys”
>
> >
>
> > http://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n277/mode/2up
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The will of the 5th Lord Berkeley is cited as a source by Douglas for Sir William Dennys & Anne Berkeley in both the 2004 & 2011 editions. It's curious no mention is made that Anne was alive and named in it. As her husband Sir William died a mere six months later, on 22 June 1533, there was no time for him to have made any marriage after Anne Berkeley.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hopefully, Sir William's IPM, not taken until January 1535, will reveal if Anne his wife survived him. It may help to determine her date of death.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Anne Berkeley is one of two gateway ancestors providing an undisputed Edward I descent for the three Deighton sisters who immigrated to New England in the 1630s. The proposed Edward III descent for Anne's husband Sir William Dennys through Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter Jane Stradling is suggestive, and far from conclusive. No 15th, 16th or even 17th-century document or pedigree has ever shown this to be the case.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The pedigree of Twinyho in the Visitation of Somerset gives "John Twynyho of Kayford" a daughter named Edith. This was John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475), M.P. Plympton 1472-1475.
>
> >
>
> > > Sir William Dennys's first wife Edith works well chronologically as the Edith, daughter of John Twyneho & Jane Corbet (and so descended from Edward I). The problem is the Twinyho pedigree states that their daughter Edith married "Montfort", and had with him a daughter "Maud, ux. Ludlow":
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationsofcou00beno#page/132/mode/2up
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The Wikipedia entry on Sir William Dennys transcribes a 1481 transaction from the Somerset Feet of Fines which further identifies the feoffees involved in the marriage settlement of William Dennys and Edith Twyneho: "At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary between Cristofor Twynyho cleric, John Twynyho of Cirencestre esquire, William Twynyho of Shipton Solers esquire, John Tame of Fayreford esquire, Edmund Langeley of Sudyngton Langeley esquire, Thomas Delalynde of Clencheston esquire, John Walshe of Olveston esquire, William Lovell of Raffeston esquire, and Thomas Warner of Cirencestre esquire querents; and Walter Denys esquire and Agnes his wife deforciants"
>
> >
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The Wikipedia author identifies Edith as daughter of John Twyneho of Cirencester (d. 1485), and so a first cousin of the John Twyneho of Keyford (c.1445-1475) who married Jane Corbet. This is certainly possible, though it's also possible that John Twyneho of Cirencester was overseeing the marriage settlement of his great-niece, alongside her uncle William Tywneho of Shipton Solers (d. 1497) and uncles-by-marriage Thomas Delalynde of Winterborne Clenston & William Lovell of Raffeston, because her own father had died six years previous.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers, --Brad
>
>
>
> With respect to the last paragraph above, from the chronological information we have, it seems equally possible that Edith Twyneho/Twynyho/Twinyho (however you spell it!), the 1st wife of Sir William Dennys, could be a daughter of either John Twineho of Cirencester (d. 1485), MP from Bristol 1472-75 or his nephew John Twineho of Keyford (d. 1475), MP for Plympton 1472-75. But since the visitation pedigree of the Twineho family gives the younger John a daughter Edith married to someone else, I'd be inclined to provisionally assign this Edith to the elder John Twineho, of Cirencester, as the author of the Wikipedia article has done (it's unfortunate that he didn't give sources for this point).
>
>
>
> OTOH I'm dubious about the Wikipedia article saying that Alice, wife of John Tame of Fairford, was the daughter of John Twineho of Cirencester. As she died in 1471 after having several children, chronologically she's more likely to be his sister rather than his daughter.
>
>
>
> Wedgwood's HOP has biographies of the two Johns and also of the two Williams of this family - the elder William being brother of John T. of Cirencester and the younger William being brother of John T. of Keyford, nephew of the elder John. But Wedgwood really seems to mess up the relationships of John T. of Cirencester. He gives a different father to this John than is shown in the Vis. pedigree, although he agrees with the Vis. pedigree in assigning the father of the elder William T. He also says the John's wife was Eleanor, widow of Thomas Strangeways, which Eleanor was the daughter of Alice Stafford by his first husband Sir Edmund Cheyne. But pedigrees of the Tailboys family show the Strangeways marriage of Eleanor (but not the Twineho one) and say that Eleanor was a daughter of Alice Stafford by her 2nd husband Walter Tailboys, de jure 6th Lord Kyme.
>
>
>
> Whether or not Alice Twineho Tame (mentioned in the Wikipedia article) was a daughter of John Twineho of Cirencester, she is an ancestor of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. And John Twineho of Cirencester himself, by two of his other daughters, is also an ancestor of Prince William.

After posting this, I did some further checking on Eleanor the wife of John Twineho of Cirencester. Her first husband Thomas Strangways [or Strangwich) died in Dec. 1484 (will dated 18 Dec 1484, proved 24 Mar 1485 per Wedgwood's HOP). Her second husband John Twineho of Cirencester died only 9 months later, on 30 Sept 1485 (per Wedgwood), leaving his daughter Dorothy Morton as his executor, she being under age at the time (said to be only 14). Thus, it's impossible for Eleanor and her 2nd husband John Twineho to have had more than one child (if any at all), and accordingly the known and possible daughters of John Twineho of Cirencester are presumably by an unknown 1st wife - not Eleanor as indicated (or implied) by Wedgwood.

[Douglas Richardson]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[j***@yahoo.com]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Brad Verity]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:08:47 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> As for Anne (Berkeley) Dennis, she is indeed mentioned in her brother's will. However, that does not necessarily mean she was still living at the time of the will as you claim.
> Lord Berkeley's will specifically mentions a settlement of lands, with one of the remainders being to his sister, Anne Denys. But he doesn't tell us the date of the settlement.

It was in April 1532, per John Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys' (c.1630): "And the manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Sileby, and Coldoverton, and the hundred of Gofcote in the County of Leicester; and the manor of Sages in the County of Gloucester, To the payment of his debts, and legacies, and performance of his will, And after to the use of Thomas his son and heire in taile, with the like remainders over..." [p. 240]
http://archive.org/stream/berkeleymanuscri00smytuoft#page/240/mode/2up

"In January following hee takes his chamber in his house at Mangottesfield, And the 11th of that month reviews his will and approves it, made in Aprill before, And Adds thereto a Codicell..." [p. 242]
http://archive.org/stream/berkeleymanuscri00smytuoft#page/242/mode/2up

> While a casual reading of the will would suggest to the amateur that the settlement was created by the will, in truth, the settlement in question may have predated the will by several days, weeks, months, or even years.

The original settlement was made 28 April 1532, when his will was drawn up. As his sister Anne Dennys was named in remainder to the specific manors Lord Berkeley set aside for the performance of his will, she was alive at that date.

Then Lord Berkeley reviews his will on his deathbed at Mangotsfield, surrounded by attorneys, clerks, the Abbot of St Augustine's Bristol, the Abbot of Kingswood, Dominican friars from Bristol, etc, and adds a codicil on 11 January 1533. Even if Lord Berkeley was delirious, any or all of these worthy gentleman and clerics I hope would have pointed out that his sister Anne Dennys was now dead and he may wish to alter his remainder, if that had truly been the case.

> As such, the will can not be used as evidence that Anne Dennis was living in Jan. 1532/3. Until other evidence is advanced, I stand on my published statement that "Anne was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)."

You can stand on your published evidence, you can stand on your head. Anne was alive on 28 April 1532, and was no doubt alive on 11 January 1533.

But, thanks, this was a worthwhile exercise as it just reinforces to me how all of the wills that are printed in Testamenta Vetusta need to be verified with the originals or other sources whenever possible. Nicholas Harris Nicolas did an incredible job in 1826 of compiling previously published medieval wills, but he did not consult the originals, and his abstracts are not necessarily complete or even accurate transcriptions of the original texts.

Cheers, -----Brad

[karen sims]

In my efforts to run down all members of the Chadworth/Chedworth family
I've been researching the Lyvenden family, particularly Roger Lyvenden.
Which leads me to John Twynyhoe.

This is my original reference:

Reference:C 1/506/29 Short title: Fyssher v Broke.Plaintiffs: John
Fyssher, grandson and heir of Elizabeth Chadworth, alias Lyvedon.
Defendants: Johanne Broke, daughter and heir of Roger Levedon. Subject:
Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Ashton Philipps in Long Ashton.
Somerset Date: 1518-1529 (C 1/506/33 amends it to John Fyssher, great
gandson of...) Appears to be slightly to late to appear on AALT.

This lead me to the deeds in the Bristol record office, shown on A2A,
involving Roger Lyvenden and John Twynyho and property called a 10 on High
Street, Bristol. See below
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=002-pas&cid=-1#-1

Documents on this page (expanded) give the following family relationships
"William Besyle of the County of Wiltes', Esq, husband of Agnes, daughter
and heiress of Joan Assheley late wife of Robert Assheley, daughter and
heiress of Richard Stanes"; "Margaret Asscheley, daughter and an heiress
of Joan late wife of Robert Asscheley, sometime of the parish of Bradford'
in the County of Wiltes', Esq, deceased"

I believe that Joan is the actually the daughter John, not Richard Stanes,
since the will of John Stanes, also on this page, leaves the 10's on High
Street and Bradstreet to his daughter Joan after the decease of his wife
Elena. Joan''s daughters Margaret and Agnes divided the property -- Agnes
Besyle takes the 10 on Bradstreet (sometime before 1437) Joan's daughter
Margaret enfeoffes Roger Lyvenden and John Twyneho with the 10 on High
Street. (1437)

I can't quite follow the 10 on Bradstreet but in 1515 Dame Joan Pernaunt,
widow of Thomas Pernaunt, Thomas Codryngton and Morice Ludlowe bought it
for the use of her will.

Following these names brought me to this IPM:

673. Alice Coderyngton, widow.

Writ 24 July, 5 Hen. VII; inq. 20 Sept., 6 Hen. VII.

By deed dated at Sobbury, 7 Aug., 1 Hen. VII, she enfeoffed Christopher
Twynyho, clk., William Besylys. Thomas Codryngton, and William Twynyho,
esq., who survive, of the under-mentioned manors and lands, whereof she was
seised in fee tail, to hold to them their heirs and assigns for ever on
certain conditions therein specified.

She died 16 July last. Christopher Codryngton, aged 22 and more, is her
cousin and heir, viz. son of John her son.

Glouc. Manors of Codryngton and Wappeley, with certain lands there, held of
John, Abbot of Stanley, by fealty and 111. rent.

Certain lands in Chepyng Sobbyry and elsewhere in the said county, held of
Margaret, Countess of Warwick, as of the manor of Olde Sodbyry, by fealty
and 5s. 9d. rent. The clear yearly value of both manors and lands is 201. 16s.
9d. and more.

---

Clearly, this IPM is related to the families above. Right now I am going
around in circles. Can anyone shed some light?

====

notes and references:

There is a Lyvendon family at the manor of Great Whitecliff in Bradford
Wilts. (Robert Asscheley was sometimes of Bradford). Margaret Whiteclyff
gives Agnes, somehow her neice and wife of William Lyvenden (d. before
1432), her purparty of Great Whitecliff. This family runs until Margaret
Lyvenden who married Nicolas Seyntlo, 2nd son of Sir Nicolas Seyntlo (see
last months discussion of Palton and Fitzpayn)

http://archive.org/stream/wiltshirearchaeo371911191#page/n31/mode/1up

----

Ashton-Philips held by Roger Lyvenden

Sir Robert De Ashton held Ashton-Philips(d 1384). After his decease, one
moiety went to Johnt Teysant who sold it to Robert Poyntz of Iron-Acton in
1419, who sold it to Roger Lyvenden in 1421. The other moiety went to
Margaret Weston, and then her son Richard Weston in 1422 sho sold it to
Roger Lyvenden about 1425. Roger Lyvenden had two daughters, Jand married
to Richard Wymbush - son William Wymbush. Williams' daughter m. Richard
Seymour and had son Humfrey Seymour who sold the property to Richard
A'merryck. The other daughter, Agnes married John Whytiford, whose son
sold their moiety to Richard A'Merryck. Daughter Jane A'Merryck marred,
about 1494, John Broke, serjeant-at-law.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OdpSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA297

(Obviously, my original lawsuit does not correctly state family
relationships.)
----
relevant deeds from Bristol


1) Charter of Feoffment. Deed poll. P/AS/D/BS B 3 [1437]

These documents are held at Bristol Record Office

Former reference: (196)

Contents:
August 2
Margaret Asscheley, daughter and an heiress of Joan late wife of Robert
Asscheley, sometime of the parish of Bradford'
in the County of Wiltes', Esq, deceased; [recites]: Joan lately died
seised of a messuage with cellar,
solar and garden in Bradstrete, between an inn called OxenfordesInne and
the ten. of Thomas Cheddre, Esq,
of the County of Somerset, on one side, and the shops and cellar[s?] of
John Twyneho, and the messuage of the
Abbey of S. Augustine, on the other; extending from the highway and the
said shops in front to Towrelane behind.
Also of a ten. with cellar and solar in le High-strete [HS D], between the
inn called le Ropeseld' and a shop
of the Mayor and Commonalty; extending from the street in front to the
messuage called le Thorowhous behind.
Also of a garden and dovecot in the suburb next lez Barrez, called Tophey,
between the apple-orchard of the
Priory of S. James and the meadow of John Hall of Thirdlond'; extending
from the highway to the Priory close.
Robert held all of these by the law of England after Joan's death, and so
died seised. After his death Agnes
wife of William Besiles, Esq, and Margaret, as daughters and heiresses of
Joan, entered and were seised,
and made a division by agreement. Margaret had the ten. in High Street,
and Tophey, and by sole and lawful
power enfeoffed Roger Lyveden' and John Twyneho. She now enfeoffs them also
with her purparty of the ten.
in Broad Street. Warranty. Mayoralty seal added [for usual reason],
attested by Richard Forster, Mayor.
Witnesses: Walter Power, Sheriff. William Coder and John Forde, Bailiffs.
John Burton'. John Sherp'.
Thomas Yhong'. Walter Norton'. John Bolton'. William Waryn; and others.
Dated: Bristollie, 2 August 15 Henry 6.
Seals: one merchant's; 2nd mayoralty, incomplete.
Endorsed: particulars and date.
Note: this deed is the same as HS D 2
-
2) Folder icon Confirmation of Feoffment. Deed poll. P/AS/D/HS D 9 [1451]

These documents are held at Bristol Record Office

Former reference: (315)

Contents:
January 12
Copy of D 8, with warranty and quitclaim against Isabella lately wife of
Roger Lyveden', Roger's heirs and the heirs of
John Twyneho [cf. D 3].
Mayoralty seal added [for usual reason], attested by Burton'.
Witnesses: Richard Hatter. William Howell. [The five of D 8]; and others.
Dated: Bristoll', 12 January 29 Henry 6.
Seals: one merchant's as D 8; 2nd mayoralty.
Endorsed: [same hand as D 8] A pece of evydence for the voyde grownde in
Broade Streate. [A] particulars and date.
Note: this deed is the same as BS B 8

here is D8

3) Confirmation of Feoffment. Deed poll. *P/AS/D/HS D 8* *[1450]*

*Former reference*: (287)

*Contents*:
December 24
Richard Forster, son and heir of Richard Forster, marchaunt: [recites HS
D2, 4; BS B3,3].
Confirms estate of Haddon' and John Gillard' in the same properties, in
cons. of one hundred marks sterling paid to Forster the younger after his
father's death at Bristol. Quitclaim and warranty. Mayoralty seal added
[for usual reason], attested by John Burton', Mayor.
Witnesses: Thomas Gylmyn'. John Joce. John Griffith'. William Selver. Roger
Abyngdon'; and others.
Dated: apud Bristoll', 24 December 29 Henry 6.
Seals: one merchant's; 2nd mayoralty, counter-sealed.
Endorsed: [secretary hand] For the Detteyd tenementes in bradstret. [A]
particulars and date.
Note: this deed is the same as BS B 7. See p.160.


--
4) Quitclaim. *P/AS/D/HS D 3* *[1440]*

*Former reference*: (201)

*Contents*:
September 12
Roger Lyveden' and John Twyneho to Sir John Fitz Waryn, clerk, and Thomas
Norton', Gentleman':
In a ten. in High Street [details in BS B 3. Cites a charter of feoffment
of [1440] September 19, not traced.] Note of mayoralty seal [for usual
reason], attested by John Sherp', Mayor.
Witnesses: Richard Roper, Sheriff. William Pavy and John Shipeward,
Bailiffs. Thomas Hallewey. John Gosselyn'. Thomas Balle. John Bolton'.
William Heynes. John Whuteside. Richard Haddon'. William Rogers, the writer
of the present deed; and others.
Dated: 12 September 19 Henry 6.
Seals: two merchants'; 2nd mayoralty, incomplete, countersealed.
Endorsed: [A] particulars and date.




On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com>wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:08:47 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > As for Anne (Berkeley) Dennis, she is indeed mentioned in her brother's
> will. However, that does not necessarily mean she was still living at the
> time of the will as you claim.
> > Lord Berkeley's will specifically mentions a settlement of lands, with
> one of the remainders being to his sister, Anne Denys. But he doesn't tell
> us the date of the settlement.
>
> It was in April 1532, per John Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys'
> (c.1630): "And the manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Sileby, and
> Coldoverton, and the hundred of Gofcote in the County of Leicester; and the
> manor of Sages in the County of Gloucester, To the payment of his debts,
> and legacies, and performance of his will, And after to the use of Thomas
> his son and heire in taile, with the like remainders over..." [p. 240]
> http://archive.org/stream/berkeleymanuscri00smytuoft#page/240/mode/2up
>
> "In January following hee takes his chamber in his house at
> Mangottesfield, And the 11th of that month reviews his will and approves
> it, made in Aprill before, And Adds thereto a Codicell..." [p. 242]
> http://archive.org/stream/berkeleymanuscri00smytuoft#page/242/mode/2up
>
> > While a casual reading of the will would suggest to the amateur that the
> settlement was created by the will, in truth, the settlement in question
> may have predated the will by several days, weeks, months, or even years.
>
> The original settlement was made 28 April 1532, when his will was drawn
> up. As his sister Anne Dennys was named in remainder to the specific manors
> Lord Berkeley set aside for the performance of his will, she was alive at
> that date.
>
> Then Lord Berkeley reviews his will on his deathbed at Mangotsfield,
> surrounded by attorneys, clerks, the Abbot of St Augustine's Bristol, the
> Abbot of Kingswood, Dominican friars from Bristol, etc, and adds a codicil
> on 11 January 1533. Even if Lord Berkeley was delirious, any or all of
> these worthy gentleman and clerics I hope would have pointed out that his
> sister Anne Dennys was now dead and he may wish to alter his remainder, if
> that had truly been the case.
>
> > As such, the will can not be used as evidence that Anne Dennis was
> living in Jan. 1532/3. Until other evidence is advanced, I stand on my
> published statement that "Anne was living Easter term 1523 (date of fine)."
>
> You can stand on your published evidence, you can stand on your head. Anne
> was alive on 28 April 1532, and was no doubt alive on 11 January 1533.
>
> But, thanks, this was a worthwhile exercise as it just reinforces to me
> how all of the wills that are printed in Testamenta Vetusta need to be
> verified with the originals or other sources whenever possible. Nicholas
> Harris Nicolas did an incredible job in 1826 of compiling previously
> published medieval wills, but he did not consult the originals, and his
> abstracts are not necessarily complete or even accurate transcriptions of
> the original texts.
>
> Cheers, -----Brad
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Brad ~

You've stated that the original settlement was made on 28 April 1532, when the testator's will was drawn up. But the published abstract of the will does NOT support that statement, nor do your quotes from Smyth. Can you quote the actual statement in the will which confirms your assertion?

I've seen many wills and inquisitions which quote previous settlements of an earlier date. Sometimes we are told the date of the earlier settlement, sometimes not. If the testator was in fact citing an earlier settlement, he need not have been delirious to refer to a deceased sister in the remainders. He may simply have been quoting the full terms of an earlier settlement, which would be the correct thing to do.

By mentioning the terms of an earlier settlement in his will, a testator creates the impression that it is the will that is making the settlement. But this need not be the case.

Due to the complicated nature of such settlements, things are not always what they seem to be. Just this week, for instance, I came across an inquisition post mortem which mentions an earlier settlement of certain lands by Lord Cromwell, which settlement set up various reversions. We are not told the date of this settlement, but the terms are given in the inquisition, with the remainders. Elsewhere I found a settlement of the same lands created by a fine and Lord Cromwell is not mentioned in this record. So did the settlement by Lord Cromwell mentioned in the inquisition supercede the other settlement, or precede it? Or is it the same settlement? It's impossible to know without further information. My guess (and that is all it is) is that there were two settlements. If so, I have no idea which settlement came first.

As I stated earlier, a settlement of no specific date can have taken place days, weeks, months, or even years previous to the document which cites it. If Lord Berkeley's the will does not mention a date for the settlement of his lands, one can not assume that his will was the instrument that created such a settlement.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, August 2, 2013 1:24:44 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> You've stated that the original settlement was made on 28 April 1532, when the testator's will was drawn up.

Smyth says Lord Berkeley's will was drawn up in the April preceding his death. CP gives the exact date - 28 April 1532.

> But the published abstract of the will does NOT support that statement,

The published abstract of the will (in Testamenta Vetusta, copied from Dugdale's Baronage) states that the "manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Cyledy, Dalby, Chaucomb, Coldoverton, with the park of Coldoverton, and my manors of Moultsorrer" were given to:

1) Thomas Berkeley, Lord Berkeley's son & heir, & his heirs
2) Remainder to Maurice, Lord Berkeley's younger son
3) Remainder to Muriel Throckmorton & Joan Poyntz, Lord Berkeley's daughters
4) Remainder to Mary Perrott, Lord Berkeley's niece
5) Remainder to Anne Dennys, Lord Berkeley's sister
6) Remainder to Lady Mary, his son Thomas's wife

> nor do your quotes from Smyth. Can you quote the actual statement in the will which confirms your assertion?

Smyth tells us that the "manors of Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Sileby, and Coldoverton, and the hundred of Gofcote in the County of Leicester; and the manor of Sages in the County of Gloucester, To the payment of his debts, and legacies, and performance of his will, And after to the use of Thomas his son and heire in taile, with the like remainders"

Since four of the manors (Melton Mowbray, Segrave, Sileby, and Coldoverton) that Smyth informs were put to the use of paying Lord Berkeley's debts & seeing to the performance of his will, match to four of the manors listed in the abstract of the will published in Testamenta Vetusta, we can say that the settlement of these particular manors took place when Lord Berkeley made his will, on 28 April 1532.

Smyth does not list who was named in the remainder to these manors, but the abstract of Lord Berkeley's will does.

> I've seen many wills and inquisitions which quote previous settlements of an earlier date. Sometimes we are told the date of the earlier settlement, sometimes not.

This settlement of these manors was made specifically for the performance of Lord Berkeley's will, so it was made when the will was made.

> If the testator was in fact citing an earlier settlement, he need not have been delirious to refer to a deceased sister in the remainders. He may simply have been quoting the full terms of an earlier settlement, which would be the correct thing to do.

No, the correct thing to do would be to make very clear to all of the attorneys & clerics about you, who are drawing up this will for you, that you are now, in the present, referring to an earlier settlement, made at such-and-such a date.

You're going to need to provide a quote, from a will you've encountered, that refers to an earlier settlement, that doesn't provide the date of this earlier settlement, because I'm not believing you.

> By mentioning the terms of an earlier settlement in his will, a testator creates the impression that it is the will that is making the settlement. But this need not be the case.

Douglas, you're talking in circles. If someone's will refers to an earlier settlement of some kind, it says so, directly in the will. Otherwise, how would anyone else know what the testator was talking about?

> Due to the complicated nature of such settlements, things are not always what they seem to be.

Are you researching in medieval England, or Alice's Wonderland? A will is as present-tense a document as you can get. It is a legal document, reviewed scrupulously before signed & witnessed. From the evidence at hand, it's not clear if the individuals named by Lord Berkeley in remainder to those manors were named in his original will of April 1532, or in his codicil made on his deathbed in January 1533. My argument is that it doesn't matter, because if any of them had died between April & January, adjustment would've been made. Lord Berkeley would not have been allowed to remain those manors to deceased persons.

> Just this week, for instance, I came across an inquisition post mortem which mentions an earlier settlement of certain lands by Lord Cromwell, which settlement set up various reversions. We are not told the date of this settlement, but the terms are given in the inquisition, with the remainders. Elsewhere I found a settlement of the same lands created by a fine and Lord Cromwell is not mentioned in this record. So did the settlement by Lord Cromwell mentioned in the inquisition supercede the other settlement, or precede it? Or is it the same settlement? It's impossible to know without further information. My guess (and that is all it is) is that there were two settlements. If so, I have no idea which settlement came first.

I'm sorry you're having this confusion with these settlements, but Lord Cromwell is not Lord Berkeley. Nor is an IPM or a fine the same instrument as a will.

> As I stated earlier, a settlement of no specific date can have taken place days, weeks, months, or even years previous to the document which cites it.

A *will* - not an IPM, not a fine, not whatever other type of document is currently frustrating you - a *will* has to specifically leave bequests to individuals who are alive. You cannot bequeath the deceased. The same holds for remainders as it holds for bequests. You cannot leave a remainder to property to someone who is deceased.

Can you cite a specific example where you have encountered an individual named in the present tense in a will, who was actually, in fact, deceased?

> If Lord Berkeley's the will does not mention a date for the settlement of his lands, one can not assume that his will was the instrument that created such a settlement.

One *has* to assume that his will is creating such a settlement. A will works in the present tense. If the testator is referring to a settlement of lands made at an earlier date, the testator has to say so, directly in the will.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Matt Tompkins]

It might be useful to consider the legal background against which this will was made.

Until the Statute of Wills of 1540 English law did not allow freehold property to be left by will (except urban property held by burgage tenure and land in Kent held by gavelkind). This ban on devising land including creating settlements of land by will, since a settlement is just a transfer of land on complicated terms.

However since the 14th century landowners had been evading the ban (and also achieving other purposes) by means of enfeoffments to uses. The landowner would transfer his land to feoffees to hold to his use - ie on trust for him. He would continue to occupy it and to take its profits, and if he wanted to do anything with the title he would direct his feoffees to enter into the necessary legal documentation. His final instructions to his feoffees would be given in his will, and some enfeoffments to uses, entered into in anticipation of death, stated explicitly that they were made to the uses declared in the will.

By the end of the 15th century uses had become nearly universal - it was said that most of the land in England was held on use. Testators had become so accustomed to their power to leave their land to whomever they wished that some wills no longer phrased themselves as directions to feoffees but made straightforward devises direct to the beneficiaries - nevertheless implementation by the feoffees was necessary to give legal effect to those devises.

I wonder whether the wills Douglas has seen which recite earlier settlements may sometimes be referring to deeds creating uses, to whose feoffees the will then gives instructons.

In the present case, Smyth’s Lives tells us that Lord Maurice Berkeley had transferred all his lands to feoffees, who after his death seem to have been holding them to the use of Lord Thomas, who shortly before his death required them to transfer the lands to a new group of feoffees to the uses declared in his will. The will directed the new feoffees to create a complex series of settlements, one of them giving Melton Mowbray and other lands in Leicestershire to his son Thomas in tail with various remainders (not specified by Smyth).

The abstract of the will in Testamenta Vetusta appears to identify the remainders, including one in favour of his sister Anne Denys. I agree with Brad that this means she was alive when the will was made (or at least that lord Berkeley thought she was). Though I’d be a bit careful with that abstract. It is clearly only an abstract, giving only a summary of some of the provisions of the will (entails and remainders are usually rather more verbose), and omitting others entirely, while its date is different from that in the margin of Smyth’s Lives (p. 240). It might be possible to get a more reliable and fuller abstract in Bridget Wells-Furby’s Calendar.

Matt Tompkins

[Brad Verity]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:34:28 AM UTC-7, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> It might be useful to consider the legal background against which this will was made.

Dear Matt,

Thank you for this very informative and reasoned response.

> Though I’d be a bit careful with that abstract. It is clearly only an abstract, giving only a summary of some of the provisions of the will (entails and remainders are usually rather more verbose), and omitting others entirely, while its date is different from that in the margin of Smyth’s Lives (p. 240).

I agree with you on this caution. I don't know where Sir William Dugdale got the copy of Lord Berkeley's will to abstract in his 'Baronage'. I've checked the National Archives, and they don't have it in their Wills Online series.

> It might be possible to get a more reliable and fuller abstract in Bridget Wells-Furby’s Calendar.

I assume you're referring to her 'Catalogue of the Medieval Muniments at Berkeley Castle' (2 vols.)? Unfortunately, per the write up in Access To Archives, the cut-off year for the muniments is 1492 (the year of death of William, Marquess Berkeley). The ones following that date have not been catalogued or put onto Access To Archives.

So at this point, we only have Smyth & Testamenta Vetusta to work from.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 12:15:56 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> I agree with you on this caution. I don't know where Sir William Dugdale got the copy of Lord Berkeley's will to abstract in his 'Baronage'. I've checked the National Archives, and they don't have it in their Wills Online series.
> So at this point, we only have Smyth & Testamenta Vetusta to work from.

Many thanks to Karen Sims, who located the will of the 5th Lord Berkeley in Ancestry's PCC database, and emailed me the link. I've downloaded the will - it is 6 pages of jpeg files - and can email it to anyone interested. It is in English (with the Probate, as usual, in Latin), but the handwritten script can be hard to decipher.

Bottom line is that Lord Berkeley made various grants of properties in the present tense, as he was dictating his will, he was not referring to previous settlements, and these prove his sister Anne Dennys was alive at the time 11 January 1532/3.

The remainder to his first grant of properties reads, "to the use of the Lady Cecily now my wife for term of her life natural in full recompense(?) and satisfaction(?) of her jointure and dower ... and after the decease of my said wife to the use of Thomas Berkeley my son and heir apparent and of the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of Maurice Berkeley my second son and to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of Muriel Throckmorton and Joan Poyntz my daughters and the heirs of their bodies lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of Mary Perrott daughter to my brother James Berkeley and to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of Anne Dennys my sister and the heirs of her body lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of my wife's heirs forever".

Lord Berkeley makes several other grants of properties in his will, and repeats the same remainder as above, though in a couple instances his younger son Maurice Berkeley is put ahead of his son and heir Thomas Berkeley.

Had his sister Anne Dennys been deceased, Lord Berkeley would not have granted the remainder of the lands to her "use", but rather have given the use directly to her children, such as "and for lack of such issue to the use of the heirs of her body lawfully begotten of my sister Anne Dennys", just as he didn't give use of the properties in the remainder to his deceased brother James Berkeley, but rather gave the use to "Mary Perrot daughter to my brother James Berkeley".

So Anne Berkeley Dennys was living in January 1533. Her husband Sir William Dennys died six months later on 22 June 1533. His IPM, taken in January 1535, would likely reveal if Anne was still living at that point, but the IPM has not yet (to my knowledge) been published.

Many thanks again to Karen for locating Lord Berkeley's will.

Cheers, -----Brad

[r***@gmail.com]

Hello Brad,
Could you please send me a copy of Lord Berkeley's will? I would greatly appreciated it. This discussion line has been great in double checking my research on my Denys/Berkeley line. ***@gmail.com

Thank you,
Regina

[CE Wood]

I thought double dating did not begin until 1582, when Pope Gregory XII declared
a new calendar would be used, named the Gregorian calendar.

So, a date in January 1533 would not be double dated.


CE Wood


On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:08:47 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:34:58 PM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
> >
snip
>
Dates from January 1st through March 25th prior to 1752 should always be double dated, unless you are unable to tell the actual year.
>
snip
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Carolyn ~

Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.

The following historical information is taken from a website hosted by the Connecticut State Library. It addresses the issue of double dating.

As indicated below, England began treating March 25th as the beginning of the new year starting in the twelfth century.

In 1752 the beginning of the legal new year was moved from March 25 to January 1st.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

Today, Americans are used to a calendar with a "year" based the earth's rotation around the sun, with "months" having no relationship to the cycles of the moon and New Years Day falling on January 1. However, that system was not adopted in England and its colonies until 1752. The changes implemented that year have created challenges for historians and genealogists working with early colonial records, since it is sometimes hard to determine whether information was entered according to the then-current English calendar or the "New Style" calendar we use today.

Throughout history there have been numerous attempts to convey time in relation to the sun and moon. Even now the Chinese and Islamic calendars are based on the motion of the moon around the earth, rather than the motion of the earth in relation to the sun, and the Jewish calendar links years to the cycle of the sun and months to the cycle of the moon.

The Julian Calendar
In 45 B.C., Julius Caesar ordered a calendar consisting of twelve months based on a solar year. This calendar employed a cycle of three years of 365 days, followed by a year of 366 days (leap year). When first implemented, the "Julian Calendar" also moved the beginning of the year from March 1 to January 1. However, following the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, the new year was gradually realigned to coincide with Christian festivals until by the seventh century, Christmas Day marked the beginning of the new year in many countries.

By the ninth century, parts of southern Europe began observing first day of the new year on March 25 to coincide with Annunciation Day (the church holiday nine months prior to Christmas celebrating the Angel Gabriel's revelation to the Virgin Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah). The last day of the year was March 24. However, England did not adopt this change in the beginning of the new year until late in the twelfth century.

Because the year began in March, records referring to the "first month" pertain to March; to the second month pertain to April, etc., so that "the 19th of the 12th month" would be February 19. In fact, in Latin, September means seventh month, October means eighth month, November means ninth month, and December means tenth month. Use of numbers, rather than names, of months was especially prevalent in Quaker records.

The Gregorian Calendar
During the Middle Ages, it began to became apparent that the Julian leap year formula had overcompensated for the actual length of a solar year, having added an extra day every 128 years. However, no adjustments were made to compensate. By 1582, seasonal equinoxes were falling 10 days "too early," and some church holidays, such as Easter, did not always fall in the proper seasons. In that year, Pope Gregory XIII authorized, and most Roman Catholic countries adopted, the "Gregorian" or "New Style" Calendar." As part of the change, ten days were dropped from the month of October, and the formula for determining leap years was revised so that only years divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000) at the end of a century would be leap years. January 1 was established as the first day of the new year. Protestant countries, including England and its colonies, not recognizing the authority of the Pope, continued to use the Julian Calendar.

Double Dating
Between 1582 and 1752, not only were two calendars in use in Europe (and in European colonies), but two different starts of the year were in use in England. Although the "Legal" year began on March 25, the use of the Gregorian calendar by other European countries led to January 1 becoming commonly celebrated as "New Year's Day" and given as the first day of the year in almanacs.

To avoid misinterpretation, both the "Old Style" and "New Style" year was often used in English and colonial records for dates falling between the new New Year (January 1) and old New Year (March 25), a system known as "double dating." Such dates are usually identified by a slash mark [/] breaking the "Old Style" and "New Style" year, for example, March 19, 1631/2. Occasionally, writers would express the double date with a hyphen, for example, March 19, 1631-32. In general, double dating was more common in civil than church and ecclesiastical records.

The Changes of 1752
In accordance with a 1750 act of Parliament, England and its colonies changed calendars in 1752. By that time, the discrepancy between a solar year and the Julian Calendar had grown by an additional day, so that the calendar used in England and its colonies was 11 days out-of-sync with the Gregorian Calendar in use in most other parts of Europe.

England's calendar change included three major components. The Julian Calendar was replaced by the Gregorian Calendar, changing the formula for calculating leap years. The beginning of the legal new year was moved from March 25 to January 1. Finally, 11 days were dropped from the month of September 1752.

The changeover involved a series of steps:

December 31, 1750 was followed by January 1, 1750 (under the "Old Style" calendar, December was the 10th month and January the 11th)
March 24, 1750 was followed by March 25, 1751 (March 25 was the first day of the "Old Style" year)
December 31, 1751 was followed by January 1, 1752 (the switch from March 25 to January 1 as the first day of the year)
September 2, 1752 was followed by September 14, 1752 (drop of 11 days to conform to the Gregorian calendar)

[MILLARD A.R.]

> From: Brad Verity [mailto:***@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 30 July 2013 18:06
>
> Perhaps Sir William's own IPM, taken in January 1535,
> would shed some light, but sadly, the Henry VIII IPMs have not yet
> been published.

Some have been published, but in very brief form. Chris Philips lists:

Inquisitions post mortem, Henry VIII-Charles I [1509 onwards] (Genealogist, new series 9-19, 25-36; 1892-1903, 1908-1920)
Very brief genealogical abstracts, including details of the deceased tenant in chief and the heir(s). Alphabetically arranged by tenant's surname, from A to Peytre.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/ipm.shtml

A good number of issues of The Genealogist are available on archive.org, and certainly some of those include IPM abstracts.


Best wishes

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - ***@durham.ac.uk
Bodimeade genealogy: http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My family history: http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/
GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

[n***@cox.net]

Hello, everyone,
John Twiniho of Cirencester (d. 1485) was married firstly, before the morrow of the Nativity of John the Baptist, 1 Edward IV (1461), to Agnes ------------. She was living on 15 May 15 Edward IV (1476). This is from the Gloucestershire Archives Online Catalogue <ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk>.
John's heir was his daughter Dorothy, but F.W.Weaver's Twiniho pedigree (Visitations of the County of Somerset, 1531 and 1575, pg. 132) gives him another daughter, Mary, wife of William Reade, and two children who presumably died young.
In the Ricardian Bulletin (Richard III Society) Autumn 2004, pg. 37, an article on the Logge Register of wills at Canterbury, by Lesley Wynne-Davies, John Twiniho's will is mentioned, and "from internal evidence in the will he seems to fit into the Tywnyho family as brother of the William who was the husband of Ankarette."
Hope this is helpful.
Nancy

[j***@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:27:06 AM UTC-7, ***@cox.net wrote:
> Hello, everyone,
>
> John Twiniho of Cirencester (d. 1485) was married firstly, before the morrow of the Nativity of John the Baptist, 1 Edward IV (1461), to Agnes ------------. She was living on 15 May 15 Edward IV (1476). This is from the Gloucestershire Archives Online Catalogue <ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk>.
>
> John's heir was his daughter Dorothy, but F.W.Weaver's Twiniho pedigree (Visitations of the County of Somerset, 1531 and 1575, pg. 132) gives him another daughter, Mary, wife of William Reade, and two children who presumably died young.
>
> In the Ricardian Bulletin (Richard III Society) Autumn 2004, pg. 37, an article on the Logge Register of wills at Canterbury, by Lesley Wynne-Davies, John Twiniho's will is mentioned, and "from internal evidence in the will he seems to fit into the Tywnyho family as brother of the William who was the husband of Ankarette."
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Nancy

Thanks for this information on the first wife of John Twiniho/Twineho of Circencester. The website you gave for the Gloucestershire Archives Online Catalogue doesn't seem to work ("under construction"). Perhaps this is the proper URL:http://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/DServe/DServe.exe?dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Index.tcl

However I can't immediately find anything resembling this item in that catalog. Can you provide a more exact reference?

[n***@cox.net]

John,
Yes, that is the whole URL. Sorry for the confusion.
The two records are grants of land. The Finding Ref. is D326/T94. The first one is titled Messuage and Virgate of Land Formerly Held By Thos Cammeys, T94/1. The parties are (I) Robert Sende of Creklade; and (ii) John Twynyho of Cirencester and Agnes his wife. It is dated 25 June 1461. The witnesses include Will. Twynyho esq.
The second grant is T94/2, dated 15 May 15 Edward IV (1475). The parties are (I) John Twyneho of Cirencester and wife Agnes; and (ii) Wm. Eyslond and wife Agnes.
I am a beginner in medieval genealogy and I'm sorry if my references are inadequate. I am learning a lot about the various records and how to cite them, and hope to be able to make some contributions now that the troll is gone.
Thanks,
Nancy

[j***@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:08:31 PM UTC-7, ***@cox.net wrote:
> John,
>
> Yes, that is the whole URL. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> The two records are grants of land. The Finding Ref. is D326/T94. The first one is titled Messuage and Virgate of Land Formerly Held By Thos Cammeys, T94/1. The parties are (I) Robert Sende of Creklade; and (ii) John Twynyho of Cirencester and Agnes his wife. It is dated 25 June 1461. The witnesses include Will. Twynyho esq.
>
> The second grant is T94/2, dated 15 May 15 Edward IV (1475). The parties are (I) John Twyneho of Cirencester and wife Agnes; and (ii) Wm. Eyslond and wife Agnes.
>
> I am a beginner in medieval genealogy and I'm sorry if my references are inadequate. I am learning a lot about the various records and how to cite them, and hope to be able to make some contributions now that the troll is gone.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nancy

Thanks for the further useful information, Nancy! It's good to hear that someone has been working on this rather obscure and somewhat confusing family.