Medieval Source Records, part 1: Visitations

[Zenobia]

Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall is a very useful source for researching early Cornish families of the gentry, but it must be used with caution.

Vivian used as his primary source the original 1530, 1573 and 1620 Heralds Visitations of Cornwall, and supplemented these with material from IPMs, Fines, Parish Registers, Bishop's Transcripts and other primary sources. Fortunately for us, Vivian was very precise in his footnotes, stating where he acquired each piece of information.

For each family, Vivian prints the original Visitation in italics, giving the year of the Visitation, and the name of the person who provided the information. Some of the Visitations are very brief, giving only three generations; others, however, may go back for many many generations prior to the original informant. Tempting as it may be to take these long pedigrees with many early generations, and transfer them to our own ancestry sheets, this is not a wise choice.

Common sense dictates that the original informant would have been expected to be correct on the following info: his own name and that of his wife, the names and ages of his children, the names of his siblings and their spouses, the name of his father-in-law and the names of his own parents. He is also most likely going to know the names of his grandparents. Anything earlier than that however, needs to be backed up with additional primary evidence. Use common sense in these instances - remember, most persons who are not active in tracing their family history seldom know the names of persons further back than their own grandparents. This was just as true in the 16th and 17th centuries as it is today.

Vivian provided some documentation of earlier generations, when he supplemented information from the primary sources listed above, and this is generally trustworthy, but the originals documents should still be checked whenever feasible.

A final note of caution - in some cases, Vivian drew some of his additional material from the "Harlien Manuscripts." This material, which is separate from the original visitations, should be viewed with extreme caution as it is often erroneous.

Another flaw of Vivian is that he sometimes added siblings that were not listed in the originals (these of course would NOT be printed in italics, so can be properly identified as additions), and although there if often some basis for these persons, they are frequently added to the wrong generation.

In conclusion, Vivian can be an excellent source for extending some pedigrees into the early medieval period, but can be a genealogical pitfall for those unfamiliar with the proper way to analyze the info provided. I hope this short article will be helpful to those wishing to explore this source.

Vivian's Visitations for Cornwall can be found online at:

www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Cornwall/visitations/index.html

[Cornish Terrier]

I agree with the bulk of what you say but must add something.

And I will stress that this is my own interpretation without looking at my books or other documents. (And please remember that my terminology may not be totally correct.)

It should be remembered that the original purpose of the Herald's Visitation was to confirm lineage after a request for a Coat of Arms.
The person (family) requesting such would have to provide sufficient information to prove land ownership, allegiance, length of propriety and so on.
In the granting of 'Arms' the person would have to supply (particulary in the later Visitations) some generations of ancestry and also some indication of the descendancy so that the 'grant' may be continued.

In today's terms - if you try to claim right to a particular Coat of Arms you need to have very properly researched data (and associated documents where possible) to prove connection to the original grantee of those Arms before you have a chance of claiming right to them.

The case of the TREWHELLA Coat of Arms may be an interesting one to view.

The reason I began family research came about purely because of the above.

My father produced a postcard one day back in about 1977/8 which, on the front. showed a Coat of Arms with the title 'The Arms of TREWHELLA'.

I decided to see if this really belonged to my family and ..........

It turned out that the Arms were those granted to TREWOLLA of Gorran in the first Visitations for which there is some documentation in Vivian's Visitations.

My current understanding is that there is no person who can prove direct ancestry back to the last holder of those Arms which means that no one can legitimately display them personally. (If that makes sense.)

In other words - I cannot go around wearing the Arms of Godolphin because I have 'no right' to wear them in any way, shape or form because I cannot prove direct descendancy from the last legitimate holder of that Insignia.

Hope this is more helpful than confusing.

[Zenobia]

ianjtrewhella said:

I agree with the bulk of what you say but must add something.

And I will stress that this is my own interpretation without looking at my books or other documents. (And please remember that my terminology may not be totally correct.)

It should be remembered that the original purpose of the Herald's Visitation was to confirm lineage after a request for a Coat of Arms.
The person (family) requesting such would have to provide sufficient information to prove land ownership, allegiance, length of propriety and so on.

Almost. The purpose of the Visitations was to go thru the county and find all those using a Coat of Arms and determine whether they had a right to bear them.

The main problem is that many of the Heralds could be 'bought' and also, it was in any family's best interest to 'fluff up' their pedigree a little, if they thought they could get away with it.

That is why I caution to only accept the generations immediately surrounding the signer, and to seek other evidence to back up earlier generations. Even those who were being completely honest could still be relying on a faulty memory (or an earleir generation's dishonesty) when reciting a long pedigree back many generations.

In perusing Visitations, I have found some to be very accurate, and others to be disasterous...

In today's terms - if you try to claim right to a particular Coat of Arms you need to have very properly researched data (and associated documents where possible) to prove connection to the original grantee of those Arms before you have a chance of claiming right to them.

The infamous charletans Halbert's Co. of Ohio will send one to anybody... ;D

[Cornish Terrier]

Well - if he were to try that with the Society of Herald's in London he might have a problem.

Yes, nowadays it does seem fairly easy to 'acquire' your Coat of Arms but if it comes down to claiming an inheritance from one of the Armorial Families - I think 'old mate' might have a problem.

[trencrom]

admin said:

A final note of caution - in some cases, Vivian drew some of his additional material from the "Harlien Manuscripts." This material, which is separate from the original visitations, should be viewed with extreme caution as it is often erroneous.

I was under the impression that the Harleian MSS were original visitation records. Photocopies I have seen of some pages from this collection (held at the British Library) tended to confirm that impression.

[Cornish Terrier]

I do not believe I have ever seen a copy of an 'original' Harleian Record.
But, as I believe we are now discussing the Harleian Society which is, I believe, based in London and of long standing we should, perhaps, be more pensive on this particular subject.

Probably more discussion required and with people more familiar with the relevant documents/transcriptions involved.

[trencrom]

Agreed.
The copies I referred to are ones that I ordered a few years back directly from the library. (I gave the library the relevant MS and folio numbers, which in turn I got from Vivian's Visitations. )
They are handwritten in the old 17th century handwriting style and appear, from an examination of the contents, to be from the 1620 (and earlier) visitations.

[Zenobia]

Harleian must have holdings other than the Visitations - for instance, if you go to Vivians and look at page 464, the second page of the Trefusis pedigree, you will see under line C an alleged pedigree of Gaverigan. Tracing it down to the last generation of that family, there are a number of children listed for John Gaverigan, with the footnote (2) being Harl. MS 4031. Since the Gaverigans never had an official Visitation, then it must be some other type of document. The information on daughter Margaret is patently wrong, since it shows her marrying both a Bossavarne and Henry Edwards, and since both men survived until quite late in the 1500s, she would have had to have been married to them both at the same time... Elsewhere in another pedigree it shows her married to a Boscowan, then to Henry Edwards, again quoting "Harl MS 4031" Obviously, something is askew...

[trencrom]

admin said:

Harleian must have holdings other than the Visitations -

I'm not sure if I follow .... are you saying that the Harleian MSS ioclude material that is not from the visitations, or are you saying that visitation material is not included in the Harleian holdings?

If the latter, then I have to disagree.

I have photocopies of a number of folios from various Harl MSS which were all clearly compiled in the 1620 visitation, as that date is applied to the final generations named (and often the ages in that year are also given) therein.
In one such instance the folio even includes a note that the earlier part of the relevant pedigree was taken from an old document that was "shewed unto us in our visitation" in that year by one of the people named in the said pedigree as living in that year.

admin said:

if you go to Vivians and look at page 464, the second page of the Trefusis pedigree, you will see under line C an alleged pedigree of Gaverigan. Tracing it down to the last generation of that family, there are a number of children listed for John Gaverigan

This happens to be one of those folios that I have a copy of. It is a large document that incorporates details of several families, including Gaverigan, Carminow, Boscawen, Trenowth, Roscarrock and Sherston.
The most recent details appear to be those of the family of John Trefusis, who married Mary, second daughter of Walter Gaverigan by Joan Boscawen. Mary is described as "nowe living 1603" and seven children to this couple are named, but no spouses to the children or mention of any grandchildren.

There is no detail therein concerning the Trefusis family prior to the said John, husband of Mary. The other families are all shown as either forming part of the ancestry of either Walter or Joan, or else as armigerous cousins (eg the St Aubyns, Godolphins, Herles and Roscarrocks) who share some of this ancestry .

The handwriting throughout is that of the time in question.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a pedigree of the said Mary's ancestry, and compiled around the year in question. As the latest date therein (i.e. 1603) is only given against the names of Mary and her sister, it seems evident that either they or their husbands must have been the sources for it. Of these two couples, I think it more likely to have come from Mary or her husband John, as there is more detail given for them -- e.g. John is shown with a coat of arms therein and her brother-in-law.although certainly armigerous (he was a Godolphin), is not.

I cannot comment about the other pedigree you mentioned as I do not think I have a copy of that one. At any rate it is clearly not part of the same record.

admin said:

The information on daughter Margaret ... shows her marrying both a Bossavarne and Henry Edwards
-

The details in question have the said Margaret "first married to William Bosaverne" and by him having children named John, William and Elizabeth, and Henry Edwards of Lelant as her second husband, by whom she is credited with children named Thomas, Elizabeth and Jenefer.
No dates are given for either of these marriages,

admin said:

The information on daughter Margaret is patently wrong, .... since both men survived until quite late in the 1500s, she would have had to have been married to them both at the same time...
-

I'm not prepared to draw that conclusion as this stage, given that Mary according to this pedigree was Margaret's niece, and this information appears on the face of it to have come from her or her family. There could have been more than one man with either name living at the time which may explain the apparent discrepancy.

[Zenobia]

Hoi!

You have raised some interesting and excellent points there...

I am in the middle of taxes for possibly the rest of the weekend, so my head is in too much of a muddle to delve into this now, but I will try and look into the Bossaverne scenario at the earlier possible moment.

Will get back to you.

Thanks

[Zenobia]

A quick question, so I can reevaluate the situation:

You wrote:

The details in question have the said Margaret "first married to William Bosaverne" and by him having children named John, William and Elizabeth, and Henry Edwards of Lelant as her second husband, by whom she is credited with children named Thomas, Elizabeth and Jenefer.
No dates are given for either of these marriages

The 1620 Visitation shows Margaret also having a son William with Henry Edwards, as well as Henry having a William by an earlier marriage.

Does the MS you have definitely show only a son Thomas for Margaret?

You may want to go read:

"A Saga of Two Henrys" on the Ludgvan board, and pay particular attention the part about the two Williams, to get a feel for the confusion I am now suffering with the above revelation! ;D

[trencrom]

admin said:

Does the MS you have definitely show only a son Thomas for Margaret?

Correct.
Which I agree raises questions about the Edwards family/families concerned.
May have a possible solution for the "Williams" issue you mentioned.

[Zenobia]

trencrom said:

admin said:

Does the MS you have definitely show only a son Thomas for Margaret?

Correct.
Which I agree raises questions about the Edwards family/families concerned.
May have a possible solution for the "Williams" issue you mentioned.

Lead me into it..I am all ears!

Or maybe post your theories over in that Edwards thread or start a new one at Lelant, whichever you find more convenient...

I look forward to trying to untangle it!

[trencrom]

My possible solution involves an alternative reconstruction of the Edwards family.
Will post same on either Lelant or Ludgvan boards.

[Zenobia]

Yes, please - I am eager for the debate...