|
Post by Zenobia on Aug 4, 2007 2:05:39 GMT -5
Zenobia, a few more thoughts on this matter: The addressee being Thomas Cromwel as chancellor has me wondering about the dates 1515-8 for these suits. Wasn't Thomas Cromwell only chancellor of England in the latter 1530s? Now I am really wondering... The document also called him Archbishop of York, but according to Wikipedia, Thomas Cromwell is not listed in the list of Archbishops of York. I am also having a hard time determining when (if ever) he was chancellor... but you are right - if he was, it was much later. It was the PRO that dated this petition at that time period, and I swear the first info I found online showed Cromwell being Chancellor then - I must have been hallucinating... You are almost certainly correct, so that leaves only the step-sister/step-brother marriage scenario. Of course, then we get into affinity... But dispensions were always available. Well, Udon would have to be alive at the first petiton, since she is included as one of the petitioners. That is why I think now that it was much earlier, and was re-written and included with Richard (II)'s petition to lend weight to his claim. This, of course, could blow my Tregonwell theory, as it could give her plenty of time to remarry if Richard (I) died shortly thereafter. Had she been dead, incidentally, her husband would have had claim on her lands until his death by the 'courtesy of England' law.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 5, 2007 4:09:07 GMT -5
..... when he he was chancellor... but you are right - if he was, it was much later.. A quick look on the Web suggests that he was chancellor from 1532 or 1533 onwards and fell from power in 1540. That may have implications for the chronology applicable to Richard (II). It was the PRO that dated this petition at that time period, and I swear the first info I found online showed Cromwell being Chancellor then Pretty sure it was not Cromwell in that earlier period. Thomas Wolsey, possibly, would have to check. You are almost certainly correct, so that leaves only the step-sister/step-brother marriage scenario. Of course, then we get into affinity... But dispensions were always available.. Nat Taylor has done an article (in pdf format from memory) on the subject of consanguinity that is in turn referred to in the SGM archives. Well, Udon would have to be alive at the first petiton, since she is included as one of the petitioners. That is why I think now that it was much earlier, and was re-written and included with Richard (II)'s petition to lend weight to his claim. . OK, I had not picked up on that, and would agree with your conclusion accordingly. That of course would date the first petition to before 1504, if the information given by Richard (II) is correct. .....it could give her plenty of time to remarry if Richard (I) died shortly thereafter. . Not if Jane died at Michaelmas in 1504, and Udon before her. Had she been dead, incidentally, her husband would have had claim on her lands until his death by the 'courtesy of England' law. Mmmm .. I understand about the courtesy, but am wondering why would the entitlement on the rentals have not gone straight to Jane as the heir of the body of Udon, and by implication to Jane's husband in the right of his wife? I am a little confused right now as to who would have had precedence on Udon's death, Jane or Richard (I), assuming for the moment that Jane was of full age when Udon died, as appears to have been the case.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Aug 10, 2007 17:28:06 GMT -5
I think even if the heir is of full age, the husband still gets to use the property until his death. So the rental should have been paid to him until he died, then it would pass to the next heir. If Udon predeceased Jane, then either 1. Udon married a tregonwell as an earlier husband or 2. Tregonwell was not Jane's father. I think the logical conclusion now would be the following: Richard I and Udon filed this lawsuit originally sometime in the reign of Henry Tudor. Richard II refiled in the 1530s, appending a summary of the original lawsuit to boost his case. Udon was first married to a Tregonwell, with whom she had Jane. Jane married her stepbrother. So the pedigree would be as follows: 1. Richard Roscruge I m. Johanne _____. 2. Thomas Roscruge m. Jane Tregonwell, d/o Udon 3. Richard Roscruge II m. Elizabeth Trewoof The more I look at it, the more it seems to fall into place. Stepsiblings marrying each other is not uncommon. I have one branch of my Bigbury line, where the man's second wife married as her third husband her stepdaughter's widower!
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 10, 2007 21:15:22 GMT -5
I think I have something similar in one of my Essex lines, where someone married the daughter of a certain widow and his widower father soon afterwards married the widow herself, thus making the younger couple stepsiblings as well as husband and wife.
In the Roskruge case Jane is clearly the heiress of Udon, otherwise Jane's son Richard would have had no claim.
I think the conclusion you propose is probably the right one, as it explains the otherwise puzzling Tregonwell reference. Perhaps Richard (I) had the wardship of Jane and consequently married her off to his own son?
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 25, 2007 20:49:07 GMT -5
Eeeek! While searching for something else, I found a pedigree in Vivian's Visitations that just blew everything we have discussed in this thread out the window.... www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Cornwall/visitations/index.htmlSee p. 469. There it shows a John Owry alias Tregonwell, who marries Udon, d/o John Tregithew. They are shown as having three daughters and co-heirs: Jane, Jane and Amy. The two Janes marry a Richard Adam and a Ralph Liffnye respectively, and Amy marries a Tregeare. All have issue that continues for a number of generations. No Roscruges are involved... Now, if you look back at the original catalogue entry for Richard Roscruge II's suit, there is a note that Udon is described as `being but a stranger unto the said John the donor.' That must have been the defendant's answer, but is not included with the papers that were sent to me. So was this all just a fallacious lawsuit in the first place? Could Udon have been a second husband of Richard's grandfather, and Richard was trying to concoct a relationship to steal rents?
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 25, 2007 22:04:56 GMT -5
Possible. Is it also possibile that Jane could have married twice?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 26, 2007 13:52:04 GMT -5
Is it also possible that Udon could have been a second WIFE of .... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Oct 15, 2007 19:33:15 GMT -5
Well, it seems unlikely that either Jane had a second marriage, but even if one of them did marry Thomas Roscruge, we still have the problem with Richard I (thru his wife) and then Richard II (thru his descent) claiming to be Udon's 'heir' and therefore entitled to the rental of the property in question. Since Udon apparently left three daughters and co-heirs, then each of the three daughter's eldest male descendant (or multiple female descendant if no males) would be heirs to the rental jointly. And Richard, if he was by a second marriage of one of the Janes, since both Janes (as best I remember without checking) had sons by the marriage listed, then Richard was at best, a younger son, and entitled to doodleysquat. So I think now that all our beautiful deductions turned out to be writ on sand and we have fallen prey to a 500 year old scam on the part of Richard Roscruge II. I don't doubt that he was some sort of relation to Udon Tregitheowe, but note that in the second document he calls himself a 'cousin' and then goes on to claim he is a grandson. Whatever relation he may have been - I am convinced he was not entitled to any of her money, but just trying to get whatever eh thought he could get away with... I think we are back to square one, which means the tree ends with Richard Roscruge, b. 1479, son of Thomas Roscruge, with possibly a mother Udon Maseley, as per the Roscruge Visitation. I don't even think at this point we can credit him with a grandfather Richard, since the first document now is likely a forgery on the part of Richard II (and not a very clever one, since he had his own contemporary witnesses sign it...! )
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Oct 17, 2007 6:35:49 GMT -5
Well, it seems unlikely that either Jane had a second marriage, but even if one of them did marry Thomas Roscruge, we still have the problem with Richard I (thru his wife) and then Richard II (thru his descent) claiming to be Udon's 'heir' and therefore entitled to the rental of the property in question. Since Udon apparently left three daughters and co-heirs, then each of the three daughter's eldest male descendant (or multiple female descendant if no males) would be heirs to the rental jointly. And Richard, if he was by a second marriage of one of the Janes, since both Janes (as best I remember without checking) had sons by the marriage listed, then Richard was at best, a younger son, and entitled to doodleysquat. So I think now that all our beautiful deductions turned out to be writ on sand and we have fallen prey to a 500 year old scam on the part of Richard Roscruge II. I don't doubt that he was some sort of relation to Udon Tregitheowe, but note that in the second document he calls himself a 'cousin' and then goes on to claim he is a grandson. Whatever relation he may have been - I am convinced he was not entitled to any of her money, but just trying to get whatever eh thought he could get away with... I think we are back to square one, which means the tree ends with Richard Roscruge, b. 1479, son of Thomas Roscruge, with possibly a mother Udon Maseley, as per the Roscruge Visitation. I don't even think at this point we can credit him with a grandfather Richard, since the first document now is likely a forgery on the part of Richard II (and not a very clever one, since he had his own contemporary witnesses sign it...! ) Two very quick questions.... 1. If the second charter is a false claim by Richard II, why did the same witnesses attest to it? 2. I see no problem with Richard calling himself Udon's cousin and then saying he is her grandson. This is because i have seen a Gloucestershire will dated c. 1595 where the testator's son and heir, who is mentioned more than once therein, is called his Cousin in one of these references
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 22, 2007 12:32:31 GMT -5
Although I cannot really help with this I believe Trencrom has some valid points here. And I do believe it possible there may have been some forgetfulness involved as regards to 'relationships' - even though we are now talking much earlier than that to which my cousin and I were used to discussing some time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jan 13, 2008 14:24:49 GMT -5
A few days ago I received some great analysis from one John Curnow Tanner, who, although declining to join our board, has given me permission to post our correspondence.
I think he has hit on some very valid points.
I will put his in blue and mine in bold...
I return from time to time to trying to resolve the Roskruge problems, but we all seem to be somewhat bewildered. However I have just transcribed in full the two Chancery documents that you have summarised, and I put a somewhat different interpretation on them. My transcripts are attached. (I live within daily travelling distance of Kew and photograph documents there to transcribe at leisure). The first thing to say is that both documents are catalogued by The National Archives as 1515-1518. This is the time when Thomas Wolsey was Chancellor, not Thomas Cromwell. The question then is why there are two very similar cases brought by Richard Roskruge at about the same time. I think that the evidence in the documents implies that Richard Roscreke and his wife Udon were first cousins. Their mothers were sisters whose father was Udon Tregonwell. Udon Tregonwell had an interest in land which Richard thought should have descended to him but which was in the hands of his wife's sister Isote and her husband Thomas Trevirgy. One of the suits was brought to prove that he had rights to the land through his own descent, and the other suit was brought to prove that his wife should inherit through her own descent. This explains why the relationships are explained differently in the two suits. The Visitation gives Richard's wife as Udon Treowe. I suspect that this is just an abbreviation for Tregithiowe.
I think we are still at an impasse. If you go here: <http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Cornwall/visitations/index.html> and check the pedigree on page 469, it shows Udon, d/o John "Tregithew" marrying a Tregonwell and having three daughters, including two Janes, but neither marry a Roscruge. The signer of the pedigree, a Tregeare, is descended from the third daughter, Amy, so if he was fabricating some of the pedigree it seems unlikely he would do so with the lines of the two Janes, as he descended from the other daughter. I am always suspicious of visitation pedigrees once they go far beyond the scope of the signer, but at least some of the info gels with what we see in the two lawsuits: Udon being both a Tregitheow by birth and then later a Tregonwell... Interestingly enough, if you go back from the ages on the King line on the left, Udon does turn out to be closely contemporary with Richard Roscruge b. ca. 1479. Is it possible that Richard was a second husband of Udon Tregitheow/Tregonwell, and when his lawsuit for her property seemed unlikely to bear fruit, he fabricated the second one (it was not unknown to do so) to try and look like he had a better claim? You mention that the Roscruge pedigree shows Richard married to "Udon Treowe" - but the pedigree actually says he married dau of ______ Treowe. His father Thomas is shown marrying an Udon Masely, so I know an Udon figures in there somewhere.... Richard was married to Elizabeth, d/o John Trewoof of St. Buryan. I have a document from Henderson, showing the distribution of the land of Trewoof among the six daughters, with the fifth daughter being Elizabeth, wife of "Richard Reskrewge". The three parcels of land given to her show up in the IPMs of Richard's son Thomas and grandson John, so there is little doubt that she was the mother of his children. I imagine the "Treowe" in the Roscruge pedigree is referring to Trewoof. As I said, Richard could have married Udon after his first wife's death. The Tregeare pedigree, combined with the two lawsuits, to me seems to make it clear that Udon Tregonwell and Udon Tregitheow are the same person, but then the second lawsuit become the problem.... It is really a muddle... Is it possible for you to locate Trevirgy's answer to the lawsuit? The catalogue implied that there was one...
Thanks for your detailed response. I hope that 'impasse' is too strong a word, as I believe that we can find an arrangement that fits what we know. The Roskruge pedigree is clearly in error, saying that Udon Masley was Richard's mother. His mother was unambiguously Jane/Joanne. As you say, these pedigrees are not trustworthy. Udon Masley was probably his mother's mother. You are right, the pedigree does not name the wife of Richard. It looks as if Richard married both Udon Treowe and Elizabeth Trewoof, but which was the mother of his son Thomas I cannot at present say, nor which was the first marriage. I had seen the Tregeare pedigree, but put it to the back of my mind. It looks as if Udon Treowe/Tregithiowe married both Richard Rescreke and John Tregonwall, but again I am not sure in which order. The modern Ordnance Survey map shows Tregonwell and Tregithew as neighbouring farms just 1 or 2 miles northwest of Roskruge Barton. There is also a Treworgie a mile west of Roskruge Barton. I cannot find any answer from Trevirgy in the TNA online catalogue. Why do you think that there was one? I have not managed to find the two IPMs that are mentioned. Can you give me a reference please? I have summed up how it looks to me in the attached tree. Can you see reasons for rejecting any of it?
(Note - I will summarize the tree in the next post, so refer back after checking it out)
Apparently it was clear as mud to Richard and he didn't expect someone to be trying to figure it out 500 years hence heh heh. I like your latest scenario, although I still have a few pieces of the puzzle that are bugging me. But first - to your questions: >> I cannot find any answer from Trevirgy in the TNA online >> catalogue. Why do you think that there was one? My mistake - the answer is actually there in the body of the second deed - where he refers to Udon as 'being but a stranger unto John the donor'. I missed it entirely until I saw your full transcript. >> I have not managed to find the two IPMs that are mentioned. Can you give me >> a reference please? Henderson's Calenders of Cornish Manuscripts, Vol XVII (Merthen Estate Deeds), p. 87 shows the IPM for Thomas Roscruge (Richard's son). There are also IMPs for John and Anthony, the next two generations. Halwyn and Ragennis in St. Buryan were the two properties that Richard the father got as part of the inheritance of his wife Elizabeth Trewoof. Now, on to your analysis. The first suit is pretty straightforward - showing that Richard is married to Udon and that she is the daughter of John Tregitheowe, and notes that the rental is to go to her and the heirs of her body (that becomes problematic later). The second suit gets tricky. The name of the person who left the land in question is torn off, but as Trevirgy refers to him later as John, we can assume it is John Tregitheowe. The problem comes in when we see the word 'to the said Udon' because the first suit shows that the rental is to be paid to his daughter Udon, but now in the second suit 'the said Udon' would seem to refer to Udon Tregonwell referred to by Richard, who is now his grandmother... However, the reference to 'Udon' 'being but a stranger to John the donor' WOULD seem to strengthen the case that we are now talking about two Udons, and the form of the petition was simply a bit confusing in the way it was written.
Now, Udon Tregitheow could not have been married to Richard prior to Tregonwell, because Richard was still living in 1540, when Udon would be far to old to have children by a later marriage. So if the Tregeare pedigree is correct, then she was a widow with three daughters when she married Richard. That makes me question the dating of the suits again. Could they have been done in the 1530s, when Cromwell was indeed Chancellor? After all, Richard was only 26-29 years old in 1515-18, and in spite of early marriages it seems a bit unlikely that his wife (who was probably a bit younger than he) would already be widowed with 3 kids. It is possible, but I am not happy with it. Also, Udon's sister was already dead and her (Isote's) son Thomas an adult, so I am still thinking that the petitions were of a later date. Of course it is also possible that the Tregeare pedigree is waaaay off, and Udon was not married to a Tregonwell.
On the second case, I can just make out 'Tregitheowe' and possibly 'John'. Yes the Udon in this document must be the grandmother of the Udon in the first document. I still have not quite got straight in my mind what we can deduce about the order of the marriages or their dates. I will think further on this. Both document headings refer to 'Cardinal' which makes it clear that we are dealing with Wolsey, who was Chancellor of England from 1515 to 1529. In the 1530s, Thomas Audley was Chancellor of England; Thomas Cromwell was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1533, a different position.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jan 13, 2008 14:38:25 GMT -5
The jist of the above is that, according to Tanner, the petitioner in each suit was the same man (Richard b. 1479) and he was claiming the rental two ways, once thru his wife and once thru his grandmother... Here is Tanner's chart:
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jan 13, 2008 21:05:03 GMT -5
I will have to take a closer look at all of this later when I get time but I see a real problem with a reconstruction involving a marriage of first cousins in the pre-Reformation period.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 14, 2008 14:04:34 GMT -5
Zenobia - please say hello to John Curnow Tanner next time you are in touch as I have not had contact with him now for a number of years. I am still trying to follow this thread which deals with documents I have not had a lot to do with. For this reason I am restricting my comments but I would like to query Trencrom about his latest comments regarding descendancy from first-cousin marriages. I am not sure what is meant here, especially regarding the time-frame. My first thought was that there may be confusion in the descendancy because of a first-cousin marriage but the mention of dates surrounding Reformation confused me. Certainly in the 17th and 18th Centuries marriages between first cousins were extremely common - expecially in the Penwith area - so I am at a loss with the comment made by Trencrom. Enlightenment would be grateful as I respect the knowledge and input supplied by Trencrom. Time fore me to retire for the night (day) and I look forward to further discussion here. Cornish Terrier
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jan 15, 2008 19:52:50 GMT -5
I will have to take a closer look at all of this later when I get time but I see a real problem with a reconstruction involving a marriage of first cousins in the pre-Reformation period. Got this response from John yesterday: I have seen our correspondence on your Penwith board, and the response saying that cousin marriages were not allowed at that time. This is something that I had not appreciated. Two explanations. First that while not allowed they nevertheless happened, with or without special dispensation. Possibly allowed when the woman was beyond child-bearing age. Secondly, John Tregithiowe may have married twice, so that Richard and his wife were not blood relations.
I have just realised that in the second complaint, it is Thomas son of Thomas and Isote Trevirgy who is being sued, his mother having died since the first complaint. So the reason for there being two complaints may be that the first was made obsolete by the death of Isote. But Richard's mother Jane is still involved, so Richard may have an interest in his own right, though this is not spelt out.
I am not sure why I named the wife of John Tregitheowe as Isote. I believe that we do not know her name.
I think that we are getting close, but cannot yet be sure what was going on. My only response at this time is that marriages between close relations, although frowned on by the church, did happen. Richard III and Anne Neville were first cousins I believe. The Spanish royals even had a case or two of nieces marrying uncles...
|
|