GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1045112347


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 05:00:26 +0000
References: <a05100300ba6ff59b537b@[10.0.1.2]><c468aec34b.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <a05100302ba7047599a6d@[10.0.1.3]><9bb8d5c34b.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <9bb8d5c34b.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>


Cheers, Tim!

You wrote -

> > ? Are we talking about 3 distinct versions --
>>
>>(1) an original CofA (signed by Robt Norton)
>
>Possibly his signature is on the original in the College of Arms.

Ok. I see now myself that the signature doesn't appear in the
published edition of the 1634 Visitation (repro'd [not transcribed]
online and picked up thanks to Richard Browning's site-citing).

Comparing the 1886 pub'd Harleian pedigree with the one reported in
Herald & Genealogist, vol. III (as described here by Todd), the
latter describes the pedigree as "signed by Rob't Norton". Comparing
further, one is in no way a copy of the other; the texts are clearly
different in spelling and other minor respects, and in one
substantive matter: "Elizabeth daughter of Robert Marshall, of
Hitchin, co. Hertford, 2 ux." in the H&G version becomes "Elizabeth,
da. of Robert Marshall of Hitchin, co. Hertf., 4 wife [sic]" in
Harleian 1886. (Sic the "[sic]".)

If Tim's guess is right, there's the possibility that here are
transcriptions of both the original CofA MS (signed by Robert Norton)
and the manhandling Harleian MSS version further manhandled for the
1886 Harleian publication. I don't want to push this any further,
but point out simply that between these two versions, one of them
perhaps nearly contemporaneous (Clarenceux), there is a consensus on
the matter in hand - i.e. the view that the grandparents of Robert
Norton are Thomas Cranmer and his first wife Margaret, purportedly as
endorsed by Robert Norton.

Though the more the freedom that was commonly exercised by Harleian
man(uscript)handlers the more opportunity there was through the
C17-C19 for this applecart to be upset, I don't by any means want to
place excessive emphasis on these docs. The case to answer is
simply: why - within a year of Laud's hunkering down on Cranmer's
throne and swinging his High-Church mace about - did Robert Norton
want to claim to be Cranmer's grandson (_I_ wouldn't've chanced it),
and when he must have perfectly well foreseen Todd's important
objections on chronological grounds? %-{o>

Tim wrote --

>I wonder what manuscript numbers the Herts Record office gave?

As I said, Carol Parker there said #6147 and #1546, but how she
selected these from the 5 cited in the 1886 Preface I don't quite see.

This is all of course of no interest to descendants of Thomas Norton
of Guilford, unless perhaps, say, something convincing turns up in
Page-Turner's study in _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_ of the parish
records purportedly showing that Thomas of Shelton comes from
Dunstable -- which I'll see next week.

Kay - I'm expecting Bill Norton to show up on Gen-Med (or to have
some thoughts from him on what we've been saying) in a few days and
he may have something on the subject of Thomas as
heir-unlikely-to-leave-town. (I believe he had notes on the
subsequent holders of Sharpenhoe; my half-memory is that they're
well-documented, but I've nothing immediately at hand.)

I wrote -

>I'm tryin to get these ducks in a row!

Tim you wrote -

>'trying' - we all suffer from the same problem!

I'm still tryin. (See Kay?)

Cris
--

This thread: