GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1990-07 > 0648956387


From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Postulated Bulkeley Descent from Nicholas de Beke
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 1990 18:39:47 -0700


Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> Hi Kay:
>
> I based my recent posting on an article on the Grosvenor family
> which appeared in the periodical, Herald and Genealogist, 5
> (1870): 322-326, 499-507. The author in question appeared to
> accept the Grosvenor descent from the Mainwaring family as
> valid, citing a Harleian Manuscript pedigree as his source. The
> Mainwaring connection would give the Bulkeley family a descent
> from Sir Nicholas de Beke.

I am familiar with that article, as was Jacobus. In his noted _Bulkeley
Genealogy_, p. 9 under Authorities (for the Grosvenor section), he has:

"The Herald and Genealogist, vol. 4, pp. 481-495; vol. 5, pp. 322-326,
499-507. [Contains errors]"

So obviously, he wasn't overly impressed.

Also in a foot note on the previous page, he wrote:

"*The first Randall Mainwaring of Carincham or Kermincham, Cheshire,
died 1487/8, and his son, the second Randall, was born 1469 and died
1547. We cannot suppose that our Margaret was much younger than her
husband; and her son was old enough to marry in 1500. Hence, she was
born as early as 1455. The first Randall Mainwaring, by his wife
Margaret Davenport, is said to have had a dau. Margaret who m. John
Wynnington of Hermitage. Our Margaret may have been a sister of the
first Randall, and ad dau. of Ralph le Mainwaring by his wife Margaret
Savage, be we have not seen a pedigree which credits Ralph with such a
daughter. See Ormerod's History of Cheshire, vol. 3, p. 80."
>
> Have you seen the Harleian Manuscript pedigree in question? If
> not, before you dispute its accuracy or validity, I recommend
> you order a copy from the British Library in London. Then we'll
> know what the author did or did not base his conclusions on.

No, I haven't seen the Harleian MS in question, and probably, neither
have you. Your associates have deeper pockets than I do, so I
respectfully suggest you get them to shell out the lucre for it. :-)
I would not consider it worth the money and effort. :-)

But the tabular pedigree in the article in question extends 5
generations further than the marriage in question. My rule-of-thumb is
to question all generations further back than the grandparents of the
last generation given in a Visitation or Visitation-like pedigree. The
last generation given died in 1628 or earlier. Therefore the earlier
portions are far from contemporaneous. Since the Harleian MSS are
frequently COPIES of work in the College of Arms, the original should be
searched for there. And I am still not convinced that the supporting
evidences would be spelled out to anyone's satisfaction.
>
> I'm no authority on the Bulkeley line, nor am I a Bulkeley
> descendant. As such, I think it best to leave it to others to
> deal with the Herald and Genealogist author. Let us know when
> you have the Harleian document in hand.

Well, I AM a Bulkeley descendant and I have searched other more likely
sources, both primary and secondary, trying to find the truth of the
matter. At this point in time, I consider her Margaret, possibly
Mainwaring, but her parentage is still unverified. As a matter-of-fact,
I have seen a filmed MS, probably 17th century, which merely calls her
Margaret.

I appreciate that you would like another Magna Carta line, so would I,
as it would look nice on my pedigree charts, but as of this moment, I
cannot vet this proposed line!

Yours in scholarship,

Kay Allen AG
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
>
> E-mail:
>
> (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
> >I just noticed that Douglas Richardson has posted that Rev.
> Peter
> >Bulkeley and his sisters and niece are descended fron Sir
> Nicholas
> >de Beke and his wife.
> >
> >I am surmising that he is using the supposed marriage of
> Randall
> >Grosvenor to Margaret, the supposed dtr. of Randall Mainwaring
> of
> >Caringham, which would have this descent through Margaret
> Savage.
> >
> >Jacobus' points out that the Margarets in this family either
> have
> >spouses other than a Grosvenor or are not shown in Ormerod or
> other
> >sources as existing in a proper timeframe to be a wife to said
> >Grosvenor.
> >
> >This marriage has been conventional wisdom for some time now,
> but I
> >believe that while it may be possible, it is not sufficiently
> supported
> >by any primary or really reliable secondary evidence.
> >
> >Kay Allen AG
> >
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.co

This thread: