Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 25-04-20, 10:00
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,406
Default

Sorry, he is William, of Wiscombe https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...=successSource


This is her brother's will: https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...=successSource


He names William Drake and various nephews, including Acton, but I can't spot Phillip being named.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25-04-20, 10:15
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,914
Default

His name was William. Found the transcription, thanks Phoenix.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25-04-20, 12:51
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,406
Default

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...1_311348-00381


The will of Robert Dennys of Holcombe made 1592 mentions, among other, son Thomas and daughter Phillippe. However, it makes it plain that she is unmarried at the date the will is made. Further, Phillipe and her sister Margaret are nursing their father in his final illness. I have had a look at the printed visitations and pedigrees. They are deeply suspect as the visitations in particular appear to include the suppositions of those who had them printed and contain much later material. It looks as if Robert is not naming children who may have been provided for already.


When Phillippe's brother Thomas dies in 1613, he names grandchildren in his will.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27-04-20, 01:19
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,914
Default

Thanks Phoenix.

Want to look at a will for Gylbert Drake of 1580? You seem quicker at this than I am. His wife, Katherine was wonderful in her will. I have almost a page of notes on who inherited and their relationship to her, including a parents name. Except she gets lazy and mentions the "other children" of so and so.

I'm going through old wills trying to link everyone up as I need an LDS centre for parish records.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27-04-20, 06:21
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,406
Default

In order of mention:
sons George, John
daughters Jone, Gertrude, Isabel, Mary - all under 21
sons Robert, Phillip
Father in law William Sherman
John Sherman is named as an overseer and Johanne Sherman is a witness

The ages of the boys are not mentioned, but they may well be very young.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27-04-20, 06:58
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...1_311348-00381


The will of Robert Dennys of Holcombe made 1592 mentions, among other, son Thomas and daughter Phillippe. However, it makes it plain that she is unmarried at the date the will is made. Further, Phillipe and her sister Margaret are nursing their father in his final illness. I have had a look at the printed visitations and pedigrees. They are deeply suspect as the visitations in particular appear to include the suppositions of those who had them printed and contain much later material. It looks as if Robert is not naming children who may have been provided for already.


When Phillippe's brother Thomas dies in 1613, he names grandchildren in his will.
This will was written in 1492, so probated 100 years later. I haven't got past line 2 yet so he may have lived to a ripe old age but it is a long time.

The visitations are not reliable as far as anyone Drake is concerned. Sir Francis' will was contested many years after his death and relationships were falsified by what many now consider to be a leading Drake expert. I also suspect there was falsification back during the time of Sir Francis. He wanted to be part of the rich Drake family in Devon, he wasn't, and later when he was famous and wealthy in his own right, I think they wanted a connection themselves.

OH is related to the rich family although I am yet to prove it myself and the money hasn't been passed down to him lol
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 27-04-20, 07:33
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
This will was written in 1492, so probated 100 years later. I haven't got past line 2 yet so he may have lived to a ripe old age but it is a long time.

The visitations are not reliable as far as anyone Drake is concerned. Sir Francis' will was contested many years after his death and relationships were falsified by what many now consider to be a leading Drake expert. I also suspect there was falsification back during the time of Sir Francis. He wanted to be part of the rich Drake family in Devon, he wasn't, and later when he was famous and wealthy in his own right, I think they wanted a connection themselves.

OH is related to the rich family although I am yet to prove it myself and the money hasn't been passed down to him lol
Er one thousand FYVE hundred fower score and twelve. and the 34th year of Queen Elizabeth's reign.

Perhaps one day the College of Arms will put the original, signed visitations online. Then we might be able to compare them with the printed versions. Vivian is pretty good, because he does source the additions, but his book is not online.

The problems I find is that men often marry several times, often to women with the same name. Somewhere I have a copy of putative pedigrees for Walter Raleigh. At least five lined up on the page for comparison
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28-04-20, 02:00
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
Er one thousand FYVE hundred fower score and twelve. and the 34th year of Queen Elizabeth's reign.
Oops. I misread that. More than once.

I did get the four score part - first time I've seen that in a will. One of the first wills that mention Queen Elizabeth too.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 28-04-20, 03:54
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
In order of mention:
sons George, John
daughters Jone, Gertrude, Isabel, Mary - all under 21
sons Robert, Phillip
Father in law William Sherman
John Sherman is named as an overseer and Johanne Sherman is a witness

The ages of the boys are not mentioned, but they may well be very young.
I missed this. Thank you so much.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 28-04-20, 06:21
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,406
Default

Elizabeth is very good at transcribing wills in full. It's a pain, but actually it is easier with tudor wills. Besides all the names of beneficiaries etc, the places are worth noting. A woman might bring property to a marriage, it might be bought, or simply possessed for a fixed term of years or lives.

When disentangling families, it is sometimes useful to follow the land. I can demonstrate a pedigree because a property held at time of death by a tudor ancestor was still owned and showing in the land tax records two hundred years later.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:00.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.