GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-04 > 1177621200


From: "John Higgins" <>
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicide Counsel
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:00:00 -0700
References: <BAY139-F13A541E99AB7A411EF738C8480@phx.gbl>


A couple of comments added below....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For Judge Richard Aske, Regicide
Counsel


>
> >This Julian Aske was apparently confused,
> >probably by Foster in his edition of Glover's visitations of Yorkshire,
> >with
> >her niece Julian the 3rd wife of John Vavasour of Spaldington. Foster
> >includes Thomas Portington as the husband of the second Julian in italics
> >(without mentioning a Vavasour marriage), indicating an addition not in
the
> >original visitation manuscripts.
>
> That's a great explanation of how it started. I think I've been reading
> Foster's Visitation work incorrectly. I thought the italics in a 1585 &
> 1612 combined pedigree indicated it was information found in the 1612
> pedigree, not information Foster put in himself.

Upon re-reading the preface to Foster's work, I think you're generally
correct about his use of italics to indicate material from the 1612
visitation - especially when he doesn't explicitly indicate otherwise, with
a footnote. In the Aske pedigree, however, he lists a number of MSS numbers
as his sources, including both the 1585 and 1612 visiattions as well as a
number of other sources which are not clearly identified. The information
on the mispalced Portington marriage may well be from the 1612 visitation,
but that's not entirely clear based on the way he lists his sources (sounds
like some modern authors we know!). In any case, regardless of the source,
he clearly got it wrong.

>
> Yes. The one wrinkle in all of this is Julian being left off of the 1530
> Aske Visitation pedigree. John Aske was the informant, and from his will
we
> know he was close to his sister's son. Portington, one of the Yorkshire
> properties of the Portingtons, was in the same parish (Eastrington) as
> Owsthorpe, the original Aske East Riding property, so the families were
> close neighbors. He provides the names of his other four sisters, all of
> whom were also married by 1530, but leaves off Julian. Three possible
> explanations:
>
> 1) Error by herald Thomas Tonge. We've seen other errors by Tonge
> (confusing the two Mauleverer wives of Richard Aldeburgh, for instance),
> even in the generations of the informant himself. So John Aske could have
> given his sister Julian's name, but Tonge left her off by mistake when he
> officially entered the pedigree back in London.
> 2) Julian had died shortly after her son Henry's birth, well before 1530,
> and John Aske only gave the names to Tonge of his siblings who were
living.
> 3) Julian was an illegitimate daughter of Sir Robert Aske, and so would
not
> be appropriate to include in a list of his children with Elizabeth
Clifford.
>
> I'm leaning toward explanation 2). What are your thoughts?

I also tend to favor explanation #2, although the other two are also
plausible. As to # 3 (illegitimacy), Foster did include an illegitimate son
of the Askes a generation after the misplaced Julian (based on a
non-visitation source), so he at least was aware of that possibility, which
might make #2 (or #1) more likely.


This thread: