Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1045075246

From: Cristopher Nash <>
Subject: Re: Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:41:25 +0000
References: <a05100300ba6ff59b537b@[]><>
In-Reply-To: <>

>Todd wrote -
>The ipm for Thomas, quoted by Waters, indicates that at the time of
>his death, 10 Mar 1583/4, his eldest son Henry was 13 years, 8
>months, and 20 days, or b. 20 Jun. 1570 (if I did my math right),
>making Robert born no earlier than, say, Mar. 1571. Elsewhere,
>Waters writes "Margaret Cranmer did not live to witness this
>recognition of her husband's abilities, for she died without issue
>before 1568, when Norton was the husband of her cousin Alice,
>daughter of Edmund Cranmer, Archdeacon of Canterbury, who was mother
>of his children." Unfortunately, he gives no citation for this
>statement. If it is based on Alice appearing with Norton in a
>document, then it would be clear proof, when combined with Henry's
>age, that Robert was son of Alice. If, however, it is based on
>nothing more than Alice being mother of the children, then the
>argument becomes circular.
>To this I should add something I should have found earlier, and it
>might have saved you some trouble. In Herald & Genealogist, vol.
>III, there appeared a review of the NEHGR Norton article of 1859.
>The original article, it should be remembered, contained a pedigree
>compiled by "John Philepott, Somersett" Herald in 1632 (before the
>death of Robert). This explicitly states that Margaret d.s.p. The
>review goes on to quote the 1634 Herts Visitation, as follows (I
>have maintained spacing where possible, but in some cases, my
>linewrap defeats this aim, and I have had to adjust):
>Elizabeth, dau. of Ro-=Thomas Norton of=Elizabeth daughter of Ro-
>bert Merry, of North- |Sharpenhow, co. bert Marshall,of Hitchin,
>all, 1 ux. |Bedford co. Hertford, 2 ux.
> +-------------+
>Margaret, daughter of Thomas=Thomas Norton=Alice, daughter of
>Cranmer, Archbishop of of Sharpenhow| Edmund Cranmer
>Canterbury |
> +------------------------------+
> Robert Norton, Esq. of Markeate-=Anne, daughter of Robert
> cell, esq. now living 1634 | Hare of co. Lincoln
> |
> +---------+--+-------------+--+--------+--+
>Thomas, eldest 2.Robert, s.p. 4.Richard. Anne, wyfe of James
> son, s.p. 3.Thomas 5.George. Castle of London
> Elizabeth
>(Signed) Rob't Norton
>It looks like either what you were given over the phone was an
>imprecise account of the actual record, or that the Harleian
>rendition of this pedigree does not match that which served as
>source for this H&G transcript (unfortunately, it does not specify
>its source). I do think the order of children here, in perfect
>match with the reported Streatley baptisms, should remove all doubt
>in the untity of these families.

Todd, thanks for this (and better late than never, espec given the
timescale we're used to). You may be right - and before saying more
I think I'd best wait till I've seen the Visitation hardcopy,
partic. in view of Tim's postings. And thanks much, Tim!

I do note that per Herts Rec Office conversation, as I mentioned, the
original MSS numbers are cited, suggesting that in this case they
were eyeballing the Right Stuff in 1886 - but we'll see.


This thread: