GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1045116782


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:13:02 -0700
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> <a05100301ba70bf762c0e@[195.102.195.202]>


Cristopher Nash wrote:
> 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.

Hold on. I'm getting mixed up in terms of which versions you are
talking about. The H&G version (perhaps, in representing the
signature, being closer to the C of A original) is not in
agreement with the Harleian one - the H & G version shows Robert
as son of Alice Cranmer, and grandson of Edmund. (I hope my
chart didn't get garbled in transmission.)

taf


This thread: