|
Post by gandolf on Jun 6, 2015 10:25:12 GMT -5
Regarding the date of birth of Elizabeth Godolphin:- We know that Margaret Glynn and William Godolphin were married before 1512, as John Glynn settled property on Margaret and William in the year before his death. If anyone has started to trace back the ancestry of Elizabeth Godolphin, can I point out that the claim made in the Visitations that Margaret Glynn's mother was a Fulford from Devon is complete nonsense. If anyone is interested, I have a theory that she was Katherine Tremaine. Although I can't yet locate a source or copy of the settlement, I would imagine that the said settlement was almost certainly a marriage settlement, indicating the marriage was likely also 1511. If so that helps a little with narrowing the potential date range as it indicates at least partial support for the proposed dates in my earlier post, suggesting that Elizabeth Godolphin was probably born no early than about 1512. Since I can trace back to John Glyn (c.1449-1512) of Morval through each of his three daughters (Thomasin who married Richard Coode, Elizabeth and first husband Edmund Kendall, and now it seems through Margaret and William Godolphin), I am most definitely intrigued to hear your thoughts on the wife of John Glyn. I have not yet done much research on John Glyn (1449-1512) and his wife, but what little I have done so far clearly indicates that there are problems with the Fulford lineage - insomuch as how it supposedly intersects with John Glyn. I have seen multiple conflicting suggestions on the Fulford line and clearly some, if not all, are wrong. I suspect it is as a result of trying to resolve the conflicts in various published sources. Of course, what a lot of casual researchers don't realise is that even the original Visitations themselves, not to mention published versions of them, regularly prove to be at the least suspect or even on occasion plain wrong once they are compared against other proven contemporary documents (Feet of Fines, etc). I hadn't looked into it prior to your hint, but I suspect I can now see the connection you are looking at, and if so I suspect you are probably right (bearing in mind the previous comment re accuracy of Visitation records and the need for caution). I can see on the Tremayne lineage that Catherine Tremayne (daughter of Thomas Tremayne and Elizabeth Carew) is said to have married Ralph Prye of Cornwall. this would seem to be the same Ralph Prye given as the first husband of Katherine, wife of John Glyn, indicating that despite the Glyn pedigree giving her father as Humphrey Fulford (or perhaps Henry Fulford), she was in fact Katherine Tremayne. Recorded dates are consistent to support this. I might add in passing that there is a slightly suspect connection with Joan, the wife of Nicholas Tremayne, father of Thomas who married Elizabeth Carew. Joan is supposed to be the daughter of sir John Doddiscombe and wife Cecily. In 1464 Roger Worthe and Thomas Tremayne were found to be the true patrons of the church of Doddiscombleigh (indicating their close connection/descent from Sir John Doddiscomebe). However according to reports I have seen, Otes Champernoun, a grandson of Sir John Doddiscombe indicated in an inquisition that Sir John Doddiscome only names five daughters of Sir John Doddiscombe: Agnes (marr. Branscombe then Richard Champernoun), Alice [Bigbury], Emma [Pollard], Cecily [Newenham/Worthe, mother of Roger Worthe] and Elizabeth [Georges]. Joan, wife of Nicholas is not named in the inquisition, yet she must have been either an aunt (least likely) or cousin (more likely, though how is not clear) of Otes Champernoun. At this stage, cousin seems most likely given the dates involved and the fact that Thomas Tremayne was found to be joint true patron with another of Sir John's grandsons. As best I can determine Nicholas Tremayne was born around 1368, and wife Joan is unlikely to have been much earlier, since son Thomas was born around 1400. Sir John Doddiscombe died between 1339 and 1346, to early to have been Joan's father, so he must have been a grandfather. Joan is presumably the daughter of one of Agnes, Alice, Emma, Cecily or Elizabeth - though which I cannot currently say.
|
|
|
Post by lipkatatar on Jun 6, 2015 16:55:21 GMT -5
John Glyn made property settlements on all three of his married daughters in the year before his death. The marriage of Margaret could have taken place at an earlier date. (Source: Maclean, History of Trigg Minor, pp. 64/65) ia700502.us.archive.org/13/items/cu31924081264826/cu31924081264826.pdfYou have anticipated much of what I had to say about John Glyn's wife Katherine. Humphry Fulford could not possibly have been her father as he was no older that she was. Vivian had seen that a sister of Baldwin Fulford was stated to be married to a husband "de Morval" and had assumed that this referred to the Glyn's of Morval (In a footnoe in the admits this was a guess- "most probably Glynn") As this could not refer to John Glyn the elder he has moved the marriage forward and attributed it to John Glyn the younger of Morval. In fact, the Coode family were also known as being "of Morval". The visitation entry for the Coode's reveal a marriage between Walter Coode (father of Richard) and a Fulford. Both the Tremayne and Prye Visitations entries have the marriage of Katherine Tremayne and Ralph Prye. It is far from certain that Katherine Tremayne was John Glyn's wife, but at the moment she is the only contender. How certain is the evidence of the marriage between Margaret Langdon and John Cock of St Just? I have just come across an article on Sir Francis Drake that claims that one of John Langdon's daughters (Elizabeth) was married to a close relative of Drake, while his other 3 daughters were married to Captains who served under Drake: Margaret to Captain John Cock; Mary to Captain William Whidden; Alice to Captain William Winter. I have wondered why the daughter of a well connected family living on the Devonshire border would marry into a relatively poor family from St Just. archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1132-1/dissemination/pdf/030/030_358_388.pdf
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Jun 6, 2015 23:49:45 GMT -5
Hi lipkatatar Blast, forgot about Maclean's History of Trigg Minor - clearly the brain wasn't working as well as it should that late at night. While my initial reaction on the first reading the text was still to place the settlement at or near the marriage, on re-reading and looking more closely I suspect in this case all the settlements are indeed completely uncoupled from marriage events and simply confirm the earlier marriage of Margaret Langdon and William Godolphin (and the other Langdon marriage connections). All the mentioned grants occur with six months of John Glyn's death and are perhaps indications of failing health (he was over 60 years at the time) - the last especially so since it was only a few days before his death. 11 Oct 1511 - enfeoffed daughter and son-in-law Richard and Thomasina Coode 11 Oct 1511 - appointed several trustees to oversee property on behalf of Richard and Thomasina Coode 26 Apr 1512 - enfeoffed his other daughters and husbands, Edmund and Elizabeth Kendall, and William and Margaret Godolphin 04 May 1512 - John Glyn dies. While Maclean makes the date of the last named deed only as 26 __ 4 Hen.VIII, the only date it can be is 26 Apr 1512. Henry VIII came to the throne on 21 Apr 1509, which became the start of his regnal year. The fourth regnal year of Henry VIII thus began on 21 Apr 1512 and as John Glyn died 13 days later, the 26th Apr is the only possible date.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Jun 7, 2015 1:20:39 GMT -5
How certain is the evidence of the marriage between Margaret Langdon and John Cock of St Just? The simple answer is not certain at all, but it does seem to somehow hang together. There seem to be an awful lot of coincidences and accidents of proximity otherwise. Add the propensity for landholding families to keep remarrying to moderately distant cousins as an attempt to keep land in the family. Many of the families under discussion in West Penwith are at the lower end of landholding scale (often as fiefs of an overlord), and even families such as the Langdon family don't seem to be a major landholding family, albeit they seem to be in north Cornwall. Surviving wills suggest the Cock family of St. Just were minor landholders under the Godolphins and others. These holdings were more often than not acquired as a result of marriage up the social scale (e.g. merchant to a younger daughter of a landholder) and later gaining land settlements as a result of the marriage. Your references to the Drake family are interesting. I see the work was published as an article in The Archaeological Journal back in 1873 by H.H. Drake, who I take to be Henry Holman Drake (1820-1905) publisher of a number of works on his family and others, and who was a distant descendant of John Drake, brother of Edmund Drake, the father of Sir Francis Drake. My reading of the article is that it is primarily an attempt to make the claim that the Drake family of Sir Francis Drake (and H.H. Drake co-incidentally) were of better social standing than the long reported "mean" or "middle-class" standing that had been assigned to the family. Henry Drake seems to be attempting to show that by connecting all the ships captains in the Spanish Armada to various Cornish and Devon families of moderate to high significance, his family of Drakes must likewise be important. Unfortunately, to my mind Henry Drake falls somewhat into the same fault as many modern day lazy researchers - because of similarity of names and perhaps proximity of locations, then people of similar surnames in differing generations are probably related (often supposedly as parent/child). And then letting the supposition stand without providing appropriate qualification as to why connections are made as they are, and that the statements may be wrong. (And yes I know my earlier statement regarding Margaret Langdon and John Cock could be construed the same way , but I have hopefully appropriately qualified my thinking.) Sir Francis Drake (1545-1595/6) was a member of the Drake family of Tavistock, which family (per Visitations and other surviving records) seems to appear out of nowhere at Tavistock around the start of the 1500s. There is a much better documented family of Drake around Exeter and other places, of whom a junior offshoot starts with John Drake of Ashe (? - 1558). Given that Sir Francis Drake calls Richard Drake of Esher (son of John Drake of Ashe) a "cousin", the Tavistock Drakes may well be another offshoot of the main family, but it is not clear where or how. The article in part attempts to prove the connections by suggesting that a good many of the the ships captains serving in the fleet that Sir Francis Drake lead against the Spanish Armada were related either closely or distantly. While the article does suggest a number of potential connections, it is interesting that the provable connections fall into three categories or groupings: - A relatively small number that can be directly tied to the immediate family and close relatives of Sir Francis Drake. - A second group that can be directly tied to the Langdon family of Keverell. - A third larger group can be tied directly to the closely inter-related families of Grenville of Stowe, Tremayne and Harris. There is actually surprisingly little crossover apparent between the three groups, with little to connect them directly. One connection that does arise that is of more than passing interest to the earlier discussions on Grenville, Otts, etc is the fact that the above mentioned John Drake of Ashe was married to Amy Grenville, sister of Digory Grenville of Penheale, which suggests at least one tentative connection to south-west Cornwall. Some of the statements made by Henry Drake are clearly suspect, and others appear to be definitely wrong. An example of the later is that he makes Alice Langdon, wife of Sir William Winter a daughter of John Langdon and Elizabeth Godolphin and thus sister of Mary (mar. William Whiddon) and Margaret (mar. John Cock). Various Visitation records show that Alice was in fact a granddaughter of John and Elizabeth, and thus niece to Mary and Margaret. A lot of the statements made by Henry Drake about assumed family connections are based on nothing more than people having the same surnames. - The inclusion of Edward Grenville as one of the relevant ships captains would seem to imply a connection to the Grenville family of Devon, but he seems actually to have been of an unrelated family from Buckinghamshire.
- Jacob Whiddon is mentioned as a ships captain, implying a connection to Mary Langdon who married William Whiddon. However I cannot see an viable connection to the documented Whiddon family at this time, and he would need to be a son or brother or similar close relation to William Whiddon for the point to be relevant.
- The mention of Captain Cock is equally misleading. Yes, Margaret Langdon did marry John Cock. However, I cannot find a single reference to indicate that the Captain Cock who died in the action at sea in 1588 had a first name of John (he seems to be always referred to as Capt. Cock, owner of a privateer), let alone was the same person or perhaps son of the John Cock who married Margaret Langdon.
Part of the problem seems to be the fact that Elizabeth Langdon (dau of John Langdon & William Godolphin) is recorded as marrying an otherwise unnamed Drake of Tavistock. Despite no record appearing in any known pedigree of the Tavistock Drake family that I can find, Henry Drake seems to be assuming that this statement proves a connection suggesting the said unknown Drake is "possibly the father of Sir Francis, or a near relative". Modern pedigrees suggest that Sir Francis' father is Edmund, and that his wife is probably a member of the Hawkins family (although I have also seen suggestions that she was connected to the Mylwaye, i.e. Milway, family - which two ideas may not be mutually exclusive). There is nothing to suggest a connection to the Langdon family.
|
|
|
Post by lipkatatar on Jun 7, 2015 20:01:18 GMT -5
Thanks again for the detailed response, Godolphin.
I am struggling to see any reason why John Cock of St.Just could be considered to be the John Cock named in the Visitations as the husband of Margaret Langdon. The Cocks of St Just and the Langdons would have occupied different worlds. We see from the will of John Cock that he would have been of the class known then as "husbandman" - below a yoman but above a landless peasant. The Langdons were "Gentlemen" who were relatively rich in their landholdings. For example: John Langdon's son Richard was promised the following properties on his marriage from his grandfather, Robert Langdon:- "Manor of Keverell (in St.Martin's by Looe) and messuages and lands in Bokenver, Treaygwyn, Over and Nether Kevell, East Looe, Trenyddon, Baker Parrokes (in St.German ?), Hedling, Hedlingdoun, Polwraugh Park,Hessenford, Thaplapath, Treverbyn (in St.Neots), Brendon, Mere Park, Knyghtstorre Park, St.Neots, and elsewhere, with goods." [National Archives: QC 1/1242/20}
John Langdon's daughter Mary married William Whiddon, the eldest son of Sir John Whiddon of Chagford. Sir John Whidden served as both a Kings Bench Judge and as a General. He was extremely wealthy due to the rich tin deposits on his land. He was a favourite of both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. It does not seem possible that Mary's sister Margaret Langdon would have settled for the hard lifestyle of a poor farmer's wife, or that her parents would have allowed such a marriage.
William Whiddon took action against John Langdon and his wife Elizabeth Godolphin for properties in St.Ives, St Germans and other places in Cornwall. [National Archives: C 3/191/47] These properties are likely to have been Mary Langdon's marriage settlement. There appears to be no evidence that John Cock of St.Just was in possession of any properties from his wife.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Jun 7, 2015 22:16:27 GMT -5
Hi lipkatatar
I've been reviewing what I know and can locate about the Glyn, Fulford and Tremayne families. The Glyn and Tremayne pedigrees are largely agreed by various scholars (including early ones such as Westcote), and seem to be supported by other source documents (where they survive) such as inquisitions post mortem and feet of fines. The only potential anomaly is the placement by Vivian in his pedigree of Glyn of the wife of John Glyn of Morval (1449-1512) as being Katherine Fulford, widow of Ralph Prye.
Vivian has Katherine similarly placed in his Devon Visitations. However unlike the other families, there seems no agreement at all on the Fulford pedigree by the various "authoritative sources". Moreover, few if any of the wildly differing pedigrees even agree with surviving feet of fines or IPM records, and it should be noted that none of the later groups of records indicate a connection between the Fulford and Glyn families (although that is not conclusive in itself).
Most of the confusion on the Fulford lineage seems to result from the contortions required to try to accommodate making John Glyn's wife Catherine out as a Fulford by birth (of which there is no clear evidence).
Meanwhile there is clearly a Catherine Tremayne in the right time frame, who is recorded as marrying a Ralph Prye.
Likewise Catherine/Katherine, wife of John Glyn is noted as the widow of Ralph Prye.
It would help if I could locate some records relating to Ralph Prye, but at the moment, the only references seem to be as the first husband of Catherine (either Catherine Tremayne on the Tremayne pedigree, or Katherine "Fulford" on the Glyn and Fulford pedigrees). While it seems likely that Ralph is connected to the Prye family of Horwell, in Colebrook, Devon, the surviving Prye pedigree seems to start one or two generations later, and I cannot locate anything to suggest (although it is possible) that Ralph was the ancestor of the Prye of Horwell family.
Given the lack of strong/clear evidence for John's wife Catherine to be a Fulford by birth, and the points mentioned above, I am sufficiently convinced that John Glyn's wife is probably Catherine Tremayne that I am making the appropriate changes in my database, although with detailed attached notes (along the lines of those above) explaining the reasons why I believe the connection to be to the Tremayne family as I have now put it, rather than as others like Vivian suggested to the Fulfords.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Jun 7, 2015 23:57:14 GMT -5
Indeed, the more I look into it, the more questions I have also, which is why I have so far left the proposed connection theory as just a theory - it requires further support and work. Bearing in mind of course that it was initially some other researcher's work and may well have been a result of nothing more than a "wish relationship" built on the previously discussed similarity of names/places. As I mentioned in the previous post, there are hints and suggestions (e.g. John Cock and his children seeming to move somewhat up the social scale and become minor land holders) that to some extent provide indirect and unsubstantiated support for a connection between the Langdon family and John Cock of St. Just. However there are equally good and valid reasons, such as the apparent large discrepancy in social standing, not to mention the distance between "home bases" to doubt the connection. One of the big questions in my mind at the moment is the origin of the various families surnamed COCK in the west country. So far I have identified just one single family of sufficient significance (e.g. landed, titled, etc) to rate a pedigree in any of the usual places - a Plymouth based family with links into Cornwall, but this family seems to "appear" only around the mid 1500s and apparently disappears again into obscurity a couple of generations later. (It is just possible that they are connected with the family of the ships captain in the Spanish Armada since he was supposedly of Plymouth). Other than that one family the most you see nin the various pedigrees is an occasional marriage, usually of a daughter (often a known younger one) from one of the "better" families marrying a man surnamed COCK. Based on the theory that Margaret would have married well like her sisters (plausible starting position), this would seem at first glance to suggest that no Cock family existed that was of sufficient importance or status to have a son marry Margaret Langdon! Perhaps Margaret was a younger/youngest daughter and for whatever reason was not supplied with a dowry or deeded land by her father. After all the Visitations indicate that Margaret had at least five brothers and several sisters. Even a reasonably wealthy man such as their father John Langdon has to draw a line somewhere when handing out bequests unless he is willing to completely break up the family estates. There is another possibility that cannot be excluded, hence the possible theory. We have the John Cock of St. Just who leaves a will in 1601. He was certainly a rung or three up the social/wealth ladder since he had sufficient assets to leave a will. The question is what status did he hold? It was certainly nowhere near that of the Langdon family, but what was it? Two thoughts here, which may be nothing more than co-incidence: - The will of John Cock in 1601 is apparently in such bad condition that significant parts of it are illegible. Bearing in mind I have not seen the original, it is not beyond possibility that those illegible and un-transcribed parts might potentially hold a reference to a land holding.
- John Cock (died 1666), son of the above John also left a will and he specifically mentions holding land by grante or domise from William Godolphin of Paule Esq. Where did this holding come from - John Cock's father perhaps or directly to this John Cock?
Now it is worth remembering that Margaret Langdon's mother was Elizabeth Godolphin, and her father's sister Blanch Langdon married William Godolphin (brother of Elizabeth). May not be relevant, but is potentially suggestive. I have not yet been able to place William Godolphin of Paule within the larger Godolphin family, but he would seem to be a moderate to large landholder in West Penwith, since the man John Cock Jnr holds his lease from seems to be the same person as William Godolphin of Trevenoweth, parish of Paul, Esq. who appears in the UKNA records making leases of some of his land to others (Jenken & Shetford) in 1653 and 1676 respectively. Also, while there is another known family surnamed Cock that "appears" in the records at Gwithian around this time, there does not seem to be a connection (at least an obvious one) between the two families, and COCK is not a particularly common West Penwith surname (and not really a Cornish surname either) around this time - suggesting the possibility that it is an recent import (in both cases) from further afield. While I cannot provide a valid reason why, given the unknown origin of the St. Just in Penwith based Cock family, there remains the outside chance that they originated from Devon and moved south for reasons unknown. And after all you could ask the same question as to why did Digory Grenville moved south? No obvious reason that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Jun 8, 2015 0:41:44 GMT -5
OK, think I have placed "William Godolphin of Trevenoweth, parish of Paul, Esq." He looks like he is William Godolphin (c.1609-c.1689), son of Nicholas Godolphin of Trewervenoth de Paule in Com. Devon (as it is given in Vivian's Visitations) and Phillipa Nicholles. William was apparently better known to history as Colonel William Godolphin (1609-1689) having served with Sir Ralph Hopton and his cornish army in the English civil wars 1642 -1649. He was the only son, and this branch of the Godolphins became extinct with his death (although a couple of his sisters may have left descendants). This makes Col. William Godolphin of Trevenoweth a distant cousin to the Langdon connections, since the great-great-grandfather of William was a first cousin to Elizabeth Godolphin who married John Langdon. Another (possibly irrelevant) reason, albeit vague and distant to add into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by white on Jun 8, 2015 2:40:42 GMT -5
There may be a clue in that John Otts, who supposedly married Margaret Grenville and was the Grandfather of John Otts who married Mary Cock, was a mine agent for the Carnsew family who were close to the Grenvilles. The original work by John Tanner included correspondence between them.
|
|