Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-05 > 1147273994

From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of William Boleyn, K.B.
Date: 10 May 2006 08:13:14 -0700
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Dear Michael ~

In the second document dated 1469 which I posted yesterday, it is
stated that the agreement regarding the manor of Virworthy, Devon was
made with "the assent of William and Margaret Boleyn." I find it
impossible that a four year old wife would be able to give legal assent
to such an agreement. More than likely, Margaret Butler was aged 12-14
at the time of this document, which would place her birth at
approximately 1455-1457. At the very least, Margaret Butler would
surely have been at least 13 years of age in 1473, in which year her
husband, William Boleyn, turned 22, by which date William was required
to have settled lands on Margaret. This would mean Margaret was born
no later than 1460, and thus would be aged 17 at her first son, Thomas'
birth in 1477. This time frame makes sense to me. Likewise, by church
law, Margaret had to be at least aged 7 for her to contract a valid
marriage. This would place her birth as no later than 1462, or make
her at least aged 15 at her son, Thomas' birth in 1477.

All of these factors make it plain that Margaret Butler, wife of Sir
William Boleyn, was born sometime before 1465. I vote for a birthdate
for Margaret Butler of around 1460. I might add that Mr. Sergeant had
no knowledge of the 1469 documents I posted.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

< Dear Douglas
< I am not familiar with Mr Sergeant's work, so I am unable to assess
< this appeal to his authority. It would be interesting to know,
< however, why we should assent to his assertion that a birthdate of
< or 1465 [ie aged 20 in 1485] for Lady Margaret Boleyn is
< Is it because she had a child "born in 1477"? If so, should we not
< find it impossible that Margaret Beaufort was a mother in 1456 at the
< age of 13? Is it because she would therefore have been married at
< age of four? If so, what are we to make of other child-marriages from
< the period in question?
< Is it likely? Certainly not. Is it impossible? By no means.
< I look forward to your further thoughts.
< Regards, Michael

This thread: