Wedding contracts create will indicate the timeframe inside the and this amarriage should have chosen to take lay

Wedding contracts create will indicate the timeframe inside the and this amarriage should have chosen to take lay

1. But really, in the genealogy, most of us knowthat for every signal there can be a different. A good vexing section ofgenealogy is the fact no-one most knows just how to make use of the conditions orrules which have people definitive adjective such as for example constantly, maybe, most likely,likely, etc. It would be fascinating if the here most other advice ofjointures becoming made per year otherwise a few after a known relationships time.

2. Can there be a keen extant dispensation to the marriage of ElizabethClifford and Sir Ralph Bowes who have been third cousins thru Henry Fitzhugh,third Lord Fitzhugh or 4th cousins, after taken off the fresh new fifth LordClifford? That would narrow down their wedding big date.


Presumably, in the event the good dispensation are wanted and granted, it could havebeen from the among pursuing the, and may are available in the fresh new correspondingregister book, in the event it survives:

Thomas Savage, Archbishop off York 1501-1507Christopher Bainbridge, Bishop away from Durham 1507-1508, Archbishop from York1508-1514William Senhouse, Bishop of Durham 1502-1505Thomas Ruthall, Bishop of Durham 1509-1523Richard Leyburn, Bishop away from Carlisle 1502-1508John Penny, Bishop out-of Carlisle 1509-1520

5. Whether your 10th Lord Clifford really does wed in early 1487 [say January] andhas Elizabeth later in that seasons, do the fresh chronology perhaps not works?

John hands?

Age born during the later 1487, Henry created inside the 1488/9, Joan when you look at the ,etcetera. filling in the fresh brands of your send of . If the (a) thechronology nevertheless work; and you may (b) their own wedding bit was not lower; thenwe just have the fresh 1505 pedigree out of Henry VII’s which is in oppositionto the newest supposition you to she try a valid daughter.

6. About your 1505 pedigree: Could be the Clifford daughters new onlyknown Henry VII connections omitted? Have there been others? In that case,won’t one reflect improperly with this document once the a source?

Regarding reviews We have made from the newest c.1505 Henry VII Relationships pedigreeswith the brand new 1480-1500 Visitation of one’s Northern pedigrees, which are

From the c.1505 Relationships pedigrees, the brand new Clifford children are not listedin a beneficial Clifford pedigree, but alternatively on the St. John pedigree. Once the I’mnot accustomed the latest St. John family relations, adopting the is the information asit seems from the c.1505 pedigree, once the taken from the fresh 1834 Coll. Greatest. etGen. blog post. The newest phrasing during the quotations is exactly because appears inthe 1834 post (pp. 310-311).

“No. XII.”Out of my Lord Welles daughter, Sir Richard Rod, Mistress Verney, SirJohn St. John, with other.”f.288, 296, 317, 318.”Margaret Duchess out-of Somerset got around three husbands.” By “John Duke ofSomerset” she had “My personal Woman new King’s Mommy.” that has “New King.” whohad “Prince “By “Sir Oliver Saint John, earliest spouse.” she got step 3 daus & dos sons:

An effective. “Edith, married to Geoffrey Pole off Buckinghamshire.” They had:A1. “Sir Richard Rod, Knt. married with the Lady Margaret, dau. out-of theDuke out-of Clarence.” They had: “Harry. “A2. “Alianor, wedded to help you Ralph Verney, Esq.” That they had: “John Verney.—– [child, unnamed]. ——-[a separate child, unnamed].”

B. “John Ssint John, esq.” He had four people:B1. “Sir John Saint John, Knight.” who’d “Five daughters and you may oneson.”B2. “Anne, wedd. so you can Harry Lord Clifford.” They’d “Jane. Mabill.Henry, child and you can heir. Anne. Thomas. Alianor.”B3. “Elizabeth, wedded to Thomas Kent, Esq. out of Lincolnshire.”B4. “A good Nun off Shaftesbury.”B5. “Oliver Saint John.”

C. “Dame Mary, married so you’re able to Sir Richard Frognall.” They had:C1. “Edmond Frognall and his awesome brethren and you may sistren.” Which have issueindicated, but not titled.C2. “Elizabeth, wedded in order to Sir William Gascoigne, Knt.”

D. “E, married very first on Lord Zouche; after on LordScrope out of Bolton.” Issue:D1. [by the Zouche] ” Catesby.” They’d:”E. George. John. William.”D2. [by the Scrope] ” Conyers.” That have issueindicated although not entitled.

Margaret Duchess of Somerset, from the “Lionel Lord Welles, past partner.”had: “John Viscount Welles, married Cecily, dau. off K. Edward IV.” andthey got “E.”

Sed ut perspiclatis unde olnis iste errorbe ccusantium lorem ipsum dolor