Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1044847466

From: Cristopher Nash <>
Subject: Re: Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 03:24:26 +0000
References: <><a05100301ba6ac7fbe64a@[]> <><a05100301ba6b0f4c4199@[]><><a05100302ba6c514333f2@[]> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Todd A. Farmerie wrote --

>[in part to amplify and correct some earlier comments of mine]
>I've not seen this, but this John is usually made son of Richard and
>Lettice (Norton) Norton, Richard being son of William and Dionise
>(Cheemsley), William of Richard and Margery (Wingar), and Richard of
>John and Jane (Cowper) Norton, the founder of the Sharpenhow family.
>Thomas of Guilford is shown in most sources as son of William and
>Dionise, and hence uncle of John of Branford. However, his 1631
>Shelton, Beds marriage would seem out of place for a man born in the
>late 1570s or early 1580s, and an alternative identification for
>this Thomas son of William has been given (TAG 16), as perhaps the
>Thomas of Barton-le-Clay, Beds, whose children start appearing in
>1595. That left the immigrant without identification, and to the
>suggestion that immigrant Thomas may have been the Thomas, son of
>Robert Norton, bap. Streatley, Beds., 15 Sep. 1609. This Robert was
>son of Thomas and Alice (Cranmer), son of Thomas and Elizabeth
>(Merry), son of John and Jane (Cowper). With regard to this
>identification, it should be pointed out that Streatley and Shelton
>are about as far distant as you can get and still be in Beds.

I have to say (with Todd, I think, and as I was hinting) that mere
Birth in Beds isn't genealogically all it's cracked up to be. While
I'm tempted by the Shelton-Streatley link, it's not a lock -- other
records referring to Robert as of Dunstable/Markyate-Cell not helping
bridge regions -- and I feel more's needed. As David Greene pointed
out back in Dec '01, at least one immediately relevant Norton
pedigree appears not in the Beds but the Herts 1634 Visitation, and
this combined with the allusion to Markyate-Cell (with its Herts
associations) suggests to me that the net must be thrown wider if
we're to get the full picture. E.g. at the very least,
Streatley-and-environs records should be canvassed to rule out the
possibility there's a sequence of distinct earlier Nortons
established there, and more can and ought to be done than I've seen
on the name-and-place connections of the Heares, Robert's wife's
family, etc. Till then I'm afraid these Nortons are streatleys apart.




This thread: