GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-10 > 1192717974
From: Bill Arnold <>
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks, Will, for the interest.
I just sent in response to a Peck descendant a FULLER proposed
from me: without details, they are NOT Medieval facts:
I am open to full discussion of what I propose:
As to *confusion* I must agree. I find life confusing, too.
But I do believe we can resolve this: the series of articles in
NEHGSREGISTER I have and have to painstakingly SELECT
and TYPE ONLINE and that is all consuming: but that is
why I requested a Leeke pedigree. I note in the gen-medieval
archives that Leek/Leake/Leeke has a couple dozen posts and
I have printed and saved them. I am looking them over: it appears
that there were Leekes intermarried with all these named families,
including the Foljambes.
Does anyone know if THOSE Leekes, re: Simon aka John, are
related to John Leeke, of Beccles, co. Suffolk, father of Margery?
Bear with me: I am rereading the Peck articles in the NEHGSREGISTER
from the 1930s and will post soon.
--- WJhonson <> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 10/17/07 20:18:24 Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
> John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
> Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
> father-in-law of HENRY,
> who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. >>
> The above is awfully confusing. Since two authors of secondary works are in conflict about the
> ascent, we really need to quote and cite specific documents showing how it went. Showing each
> 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
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around