GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-10 > 1192575170


From: Bill Arnold <>
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <018201c80e0b$46ab4e00$5f67c74c@labs.agilent.com>


I searched both the 1575 Visitations of the North
by Wm Flower and the 1665 Visitations of Yorke
by Dugdale and found no Peck pedigrees and
no Leake/Leeke pedigrees.

In the 1563-64 Visitation of Yorkshire by Wm Flower
I found no Leake/Leeke pedigrees but a substantial
Peck pedigree, pages 236-237.

Of the Peck pedigree, re: my proposed Peck pedigree
based on ALL sources, including the 1563-64 Flower,
wills, chancery records, et al., I find confirmation of the
following [using current spelling]:

_________________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice, dau. of Middleton of Stockeld
son& heir
_________________________________________________
thence [not part of my proposed pedigree]
John Peck=Jane, dau. of John Anne of Frickley
son&heir
also: four dau's: Isabel, Joan, Margaret, and Elizabeth
___________________________________________________

[Note: missing from this Peck pedigree segment is another
son, referred to in wills, chancery records, church records,
et al., namely:

Henry Peck=Margery, dau. of John Leeke
and their issue:

Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder)=Johan, dau. of John Waters:
end of Note]
___________________________________________________

QUESTION: Are there other *Visitations* I should be
aware of that have a Peck/Leeke/Leake pedigree with this segment
expanded: particularly into descendants?

Bill

*****************************************************

--- John Higgins <> wrote:
John Higgins wrote, "There may in fact be a problem in the proposed
pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
Isabel Plumpton is not the problem."

The Middleton segment expands into descendants of Leeke and Peck.

_____________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton
_____________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder)=Johan, dau. of John Waters
_____________________________________


> I'm as bewildered as Bill Arnold by Will Johnson's mention of Isabel
> Plumpton, dau. of Sir William Plumpton and his 1st wife Elizabeth
> Stapleton - especially since I can find no reference to Alice Plumpton in
> any of Bill Arnold's posts. The only Plumpton that Bill mentioned is
> Eustacia, several generations earlier. There may in fact be a problem in
> the proposed pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
> Isabel Plumpton is not the problem.
>
> As I underestand it, Bill is trying to place Alice Middleton, wife of
> Richard Peck. She is in fact mentioned in Clay's edition [with additions]
> of Dugdale's 1664-5 Visitation of Yorkshire. The Middleton of Stockeld
> pedigree going back from her is, per Clay:
>
> Sir Peter Middleton (d. ca. 1499), m. Anne, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of
> Hazlewood
> Sir John Middleton, m. Matilda, dau. of Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
> William Middleton (will 1474), m. Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen Hamerton of
> Wigglesworth
> Sir John Middleton, m. Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Mauleverer of Beamsley
> Sir Nicholas Middleton; m. (2 of 3) Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert Stapleton
> Sir Thomas Middleton (prob. d. before March 1393), m. Eliza, dau. of Sir
> Henry Gramary
> Sir Peter Middleton, m. Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert Plumpton
> [and five more generations before this]
>
> Alice Plumpton gets into this through the Hamerton marriage. Margaret
> Hamerton who mar. William Middleton (d. 1474) is identified in Dugdale's
> Middleton pedigree as daughter of Sir Steven Hamerton. In pedigrees of the
> Hamerton family in visitations and other sources (e.g., Thomas Dunham
> Whitaker's "Deanery of Craven"), Margaret is said to be a dau. of Sir
> Stephen by his wife Isabel Plumpton - yes, THAT Isabel. The problem is that
> Sir Stephen is said to have died 1500/1 per his IPM. Although this likely
> presents no problems with the Plumpton chronology that Will mentions below,
> it is problematic to give Sir Stephen a son-in-law who died 27 years before
> him, as the pedigrees indicate. It seems possible that Margaret Hamerton
> was in fact a sister, rather than daughter, of Sir Stephen Hamerton - but
> this is only a guess.
>
> Since Will has introduced Isabel Plumpton into the picture, does this help
> to clarify things a bit and put her in a proper context?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WJhonson" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Alice Middleton, died aft.1491
>
>
> > Bill the full line, as presented, is not possible.
> >
> > In particular its highly unlikely that Isabel Plumpton, daughter of Sir
> William Plumpton "eldest son" by his wife Elizabeth Stapleton figures in the
> line in the way you have described.
> >
> > For Alice to be married and active on deeds in the 1490s, she has to be
> too old to be in this descent. Sir William Plumpton is known to have been
> born on 7 Oct 1404 and died on 15 Oct 1480, his Stapleton wife was dead by
> 1450.
> >
> > If you calculate approximate years backward yourself you will see that
> there is a problem.
> >
> > Will Johnson
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the
> word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>








____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/

This thread: