Here’s a transcription and image of Capt. Thomas Carter’s panegyric (epitaph) of Major Edward Dale in Carter’s prayer book.

“Mr. Edw: Dale Departd this life on ye 2d Day Feb: 1695 and Mrs. Diana Dale on ye last day of July.

Hic Depositum Spe Certe Resurgendi in christo quicquid habuit Mortale  EDWARDUS DALE, ARMIGER.  Tandem honorum et Dierum Obiit 2d Febry: Anno Dom: 1695.  He descended from an Ancient Family in England & came into ye Colly of Virga after the death of his Unhappy Master Charles ffirst.  For above 30 years he enjoyed various Employments of Public Trust in ye Coty of Lancaster wch he Dischargd with great Fidelity & Satisfacn. to the Governor & People.  As Neighbor-father-Husband he Ex celled and in early yeares Crownd his other Accomplishments by a Felicitous Marriage wth Diana ye daughter of Sr Henry Skypwith of Preswold in ye coty of Leicester Bart. who is left a little while to Mourn Him.”

This is the image of the “epitaph”:

I see no discrepancy in the death dates for Edward Dale in the two sections;  that is, as 2 Feb in the preamble, and 20 Feb in the body of the panegyric, as is often supposed.

The “0″ in “30″ is written as a full character, so what’s been interpreted as “20 Febry:” is really ”2d Febry:”, as only the bottom half of the “d” is visible.  The image in that section is faded, and it’s unlikely Carter erred in the space of a  few sentences.  That makes Capt. Carter’s death date for Edward Dale as 2 Feb 1695.

Diana (Skipwith) Dale died the following 31 Jul.  Though the year of her death is not explicitly stated, undoubtedly that’s the meaning.

*

Book Of Common-Prayer And Administration Of The Sacraments, And Other Rites & Ceremonies Of the Church, According to the Use of the Church of England; Together with the Psalter or Psalmes Of David, Pointed as they are to be Sung or Said in Churches.  And the Form and Manner Of Making, Ordaining, And Consecrating, Of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  London, Printed by John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty.  MDCLXII.  [1662]  Cum Privilegio.

Thos: Carter Rappahanke Virga

The 16 pages containing genealogical information in the Thomas Carter prayer book have been microfilmed.  Order copies from:

Virginia Historical Society

PO Box 7311

Richmond, VA  23221-0311

or online at:

http://www.vahistorical.org

Manuscript Call Number:  Mss6:4 C245:11 

_________________________________________

Genealogists working with colonial records will often see dates such as ”March 24, 1672/3.”  “March 24, 1672″ is the date in the Julian calendar, while “March 24, 1673″ is the date in the Gregorian calendar.  This applies to dates of 1 Jan to 24 Mar in the years 1582 to 1752.  25 Mar was considered the first day of the new year.

“Before 1752, England and its colonies followed the Julian (Old Style) calendar.”  [Sturtz/p.183]  Use of double-dating which accompanied the Gregorian calendar wasn’t uniformly followed in the British colonies such as in Lancaster Co., VA court records.

According to Edward Dale’s will, it was written 24 Aug 1694 and proved 11 Mar 1695.  11 Mar falls within the double-date parameter.

Price gives a transcription of the inventory of Edward Dale’s estate made 30 Mar 1696, and exhibited 8 Apr 1696.  30 Mar and 8 Apr don’t fall within the double-date parameter, so the dates of the record actually are 30 Mar 1696 and 8 Apr 1696.

Of the deaths of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale, the Thomas Carter prayer book says:  “Mr. Edw: Dale Departd this life on ye 2d Day Feb: 1695 and Mrs. Diana Dale died ye last day of July.”  No year is given for her death, but Carter goes on to say:  “who is left a little while to Mourn Him.”  So we know she died the 31 Jul following the death of her husband, but 31 Jul is not within the double-date parameter.  If Edward Dale died on 2 Feb 1694/5, then his wife died on 31 Jul 1695.  The prayer book itself doesn’t provide the answer.

The inventory could have been made 19 days after probate, or a year later.  We have a death date for Edward Dale, but we do not know when he died. 

Fortunately, Sparacio: Orders 1695-1699, p. 4 clarifies the matter:

“Lancaster County Court 11th of March 1695/96 p. 334.  A Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Major EDWARD DALE [deced] is granted to EDWARD CARTER, his grandone, KATHERINE CARTER his Daughter and ELIZABETH CARTER his Grand Daughter according to the tenor of the Will and THOMAS BUCKLEY, JOHN CHILTON, JOHN MULLIS and JOHN DAVIS are ordered to appraise the Decedent’s estate and to bee sworne by the next justice, an inventory to bee exhibited to the next Court”

That’s the only entry pertaining to Edward Dale’s estate.  According to the inventory, it was exhibited on 8 Apr 1696, but there’s no court entry of it.  Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the inventory was taken within weeks after probate of the will.  But did Edward Dale die on 2 Feb 1694/5, or 2 Feb 1695/6?

If Thomas Carter meant that Dale died on 2 Feb 1694/5, then Carter’s note in the prayer book records the date as it would fall under the Gregorian calendar.  Since the county clerk’s practice was to give the date under the Julian calendar if only a single date was indicated, Thomas Carter meant Edward Dale died on 2 Feb 1695/6, conforming to the way official records were dated in Lancaster County and British colonies generally.

We can now construct a chronology of the last months of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale:

{1}  Edward Dale wrote his will on 24 Aug 1694.

{2}  Edward Dale died on 2 Feb 1695/6.  He survived about 17 months after writing his will.

{3}  Edward Dale’s will was proved on 11 Mar 1695/6.

{4}  Edward Dale’s will was recorded on 17 Mar 1695/6.

{5}  The inventory of Edward Dale’s estate was taken 30 Mar 1696.

{6}  The inventory of Edward Dale’s estate was exhibited in court 8 Apr 1696.

{7}  Diana (Skipwith) Dale died on 31 Jul 1696.  She survived Edward Dale nearly 6 months. 

If you see a double-date given for a year in which it didn’t apply, it’s the compiler’s error, so check the date against other records.

FAMILY OF CYNTHIA ANN (CHIPMAN) KOONCE, SISTER OF JAMES EDWARD CHIPMAN (1879-1956)

I don’t have many records on the Koonce family.  James Edward Chipman’s sister Cynthia Ann (Sinthy) Chipman married John Bennett Koonce on 7 Dec 1895 in Lauderdale Co., TN.

According to her death certificate, Sinthy died on 1 Dec 1926 at Central, in Lauderdale Co.  When I visited Ripley, TN about 20 years ago, I stopped by the local newspaper, and found this brief obituary in “The Lauderdale Co. Enterprise”  3 Dec 1926, p. 5:

“Mrs. J.B. Koonce died Wednesday at her home near Central after an illness of several weeks.  She is survived by two children.  Her husband died a few months ago.  Her remains were laid to rest in Mt. Pleasant cemetary Thursday morning.”

The children of John Bennett and Cynthia Ann (Chipman) Koonce were:

Dupree D. (Dewey) Koonce b. 28 Oct 1898 d. 21 Jun 1972; Edna Gertrude Koonce b. 1902; Lily Mae Koonce b. 1908; Ethel Koonce b. 1911; Imogene Koonce b. 1915; and William Koonce.

I was fortunate to get a little information about the Koonce family from Bessie Koonce, who sent me the following:

“Feb. 28, 1988

Dear Jeff,

I don’t have much help for you about your research of Cynthia.  I know Bennett Koonce and Cynthia were married in 1895-96 or 97.  I don’t have any record as to the exact date.

The church cemetary where they were buried does not have records back that far.  I do know the year they died.  Bennett was my husband’s uncle.  Bennett died in 1926, I can’t remember the date of year.  Cynthia died in 1927, don’t have the date of yr.  She would have been 50 years old in Sept. of that year.  I have forgotten the day of her birth, but it was the 11th, 12th or 16th of Sept.  Both Bennett and Cynthia were buried at Mt. Pleasant Cemetary.

Wes Miller was Cynthia’s uncle.

Wishing you good luck with your research.

Sincerely,

Bessie Koonce”

MILLER EXCURSUS

The 1880 Lauderdale Co., TN Federal Census lists Howard Miller living in District 7, p. 186:

Howard Miller 66 b. NC (widower, deceased wife b. LA), Jane 20 b. TN (dau.), Ellen 15 b. TN (dau.), Millage 17 b. TN (son), Wesley 7. b. TN (son), Margaret A. 4 b. TN (granddaughter).

The 1870 Lauderdale Co., TN Federal Census lists Howard Miller in District 7, p. 595:

Howard Miller 57 b. NC, Caroline 48 b. FLA, Sarah 21 b. TN, Mary 17 b. TN, Jane 12 b. TN, James 9 b. TN, Miledge 6 b. TN, Ellen 4 b. TN

Joseph H. Chipman married Sarah A. Miller on 31 Aug 1873 in Lauderdale Co.  Sarah was born in Shelby Co., TN, where she’s listed with her parents, Howard M. and [Leitha] Caroline Miller in the 1850 Shelby Co. Federal Census, p. 258.  Philip B. Hargis was residing in an adjacent household.

Howard Miller married Leitha Caroline Hargis on 20 Jun 1844 in Shelby Co.   By 1859, the family had moved to Lauderdale Co., when on 3 Oct 1859, Howard Miller mortgaged his cotton crop and a two horse waggon to B.M. Flippin (Lauderdale Co., TN Deed Book H, p. 356).

The 1860 Lauderdale Co., TN Federal Census lists Howard Miller in District 7, p. 371:

Howard Miller 46 b. NC, Lethe 33 b. GA, Frances 15 b. TN, William 13 b. TN, Sarah 11 b. TN, Emiline 9 b. TN, John 7 b. TN, Alexina 5 b. TN, Mary 3 b. TN, Eliza 1 b. TN

What fascinates me about Howard and Leitha Caroline (Hargis) Miller is this:  Howard’s wife was “Letha” when he married her in 1844, called herself “Caroline” in the 1850 Shelby Co. census, became “Lethe” again in 1860, and wound up as “Caroline” once more in 1870.  By 1880 she was deceased.  Presumably the angels sorted it all out when she presented herself at the gates of Heaven.

Leitha Caroline (Hargis) Miller was probably the daughter of Philip B. and Marian W. (Fincher) Hargis, who married 10 Oct 1820 in Burke Co., NC.  Philip B. Hargis was the son of Jonathan and Priscilla (Askew) Hargis, and a grandson of Shadrach Hargis (d. 25 Jan 1816), a Captain in the Revolutionary War.  Jonathan Hargis died in Tipton Co., TN on  14 Aug 1837.  The Hargis family was of colonial Maryland origin.

Philip B. Hargis had a son Milledge A. Hargis (living in Conway Co., AR in 1860), and Howard and Leitha Miller had a son Millage Miller.   Onomastic evidence in this instance is compelling.

On 16 Mar 1846 in Shelby Co., Howard Miller and P.B. Hargis witnessed the will of Polly Bennett (Shelby Co. Will Record C-1, pp. 338-339).  Philip B. Hargis was living as late as 24 Jan 1856, when he sold Levi Baldock his interest in a tract of land (Shelby Co., TN Deed Book 24, p. 618).  Except for Milledge A. Hargis, I don’t know what became of Philip B. Hargis and his large family.

Sally Hargis, a daughter of Jonathan and Priscilla (Askew) Hargis, married Hiram Miller 31 Mar 1821 in Burke Co., NC.  Howard Miller (born NC) doesn’t appear to be connected to any Miller family residing in Shelby Co. at the time, but Miller being a common name, I’ve been unable to further trace his ancestry.

________________________________________________

This is another family for which I have few records, but I have corresponded with Robert Craig, a grandson of Charles Samuel and Willie Edna (Chipman) Craig.

FAMILY OF BENJAMIN CHIPMAN (1874-1913), BROTHER OF JAMES EDWARD CHIPMAN (1879-1956)

Benjamin Chipman b. Nov 1874 in Virginia, d. 23 Dec 1913 in Blytheville, Mississippi Co., Arkansas, buried at Sawyer Cemetary in SE Blytheville (no marker).

Married 2 Mar 1899 in Mississippi Co., (her first) Anne Ashcraft, b. 12 Oct 1878, d. 18 Apr 1970 in Osceola, Arkansas.

Children:

Willie Edna Chipman, b. 1 Apr 1900, d. 21 Jun 1980, m. Charles Samuel Craig

Marvin Chipman, b. 10 Jul 1902, d. 25 Jul 1980

Gertie Chipman, b. 24 Apr 1904, d. 23 Sep 1980

John Chipman, b. 28Jan 1906, d. 10 Jan 1987

Joe Bill Chipman, b. 7 Mar 1908, d. 16 Nov 1973

Lillie Chipman, b. 5 Jun 1912, d. 22 Oct 1928

Mollie Chipman, b. 8 Mar 1914 (posthumous)

Annie (Ashcraft) Chipman married (2nd) Noah Wright.

Children:

Hazel Wright, b. 28 Apr 1918, d. 1967

Mabel Wright, b. 28 Apr 1919

THE PROGRESSIVE AGE,

ISSUED EVERY THURSDAY AT

ESTILLVILLE, SCOTT CO., VA. 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1883.

History of the First Settlements

IN SCOTT COUNTY

BY PETER HONEYCUTT.

NUMBER TWO. 

Written expressly for The Progressive Age.

In the spring of 1769, Daniel Boone, accompanied by three companions started from North Carolina, to explore that part of the great North-west country which was known as the Dark and Bloody ground now called Kentucky.  In Boone’s little company, there was a young man by the name of David Cox who accompanied Boone as far as Elizabethton in East Tennessee and there separated from them.  Boone and his companions held their way towards to the west, while young Cox turned his course to the north and passed through Big Moccasin Gap in Scott County.

This section of country was an entire wilderness.  There were scattered settlements on the Holston and its branches in what is now Washington county, and in Burk’s Garden in Tazwell county, and in the upper end of Russell co.  None of these counties then had a name, and I only mention them to identify the location of the settlements.

About fourteen miles to the north west of Big Moccasin Gap on Clinch river there was an Indian town, probably of the Wyandots.

This location was selected by the Indians because it possessed many advantages which could not be found at other points.  The country was covered with dense forests, that abounded in all the game that was known in this section.  This place which was so attractive for the Indians excited the cupidity of the white man, and tales of the great fertility of the soil, the richness of the furs, the superabundance of bears, turkeys and other game, were circulated in the settlements of North Carolina and were readily believed.  Such a country could not long remain in the peaceable possession of the Red Man.

Young Cox determined to trap along this river, but had not been there long when he was captured by the Indians and was sent north of the Ohio river where he remained a prisoner in their hands for about two years when he effected his escape and returned to his home in North Carolina.  The reports he circulated about the valley of the Clinch excited much interest in his neighborhood.

In the following year after Cox’s return, Joseph Blackemore, a man of courage and enterprise, made up a small company of emigrants, including David Cox, and proceeded to Virginia.  The place selected for their settlement at the mouth of Stony creek on the north bank of Clinch river.  There they built a fort and called it Blackemore’s fort in honor of Capt. Joseph Blackemore, the leader of the little band of pioneers.

In a short time after the completion of the fort, the Indians made their way to the settlement, but concealed themselves.  Dale Carter, an inmate of the fort, who was lame from white swelling in his leg, walked out about forty yards from the fort and was fired on by the Indians and killed.  Upon hearing the report of the Indian’s gun, John Carter run out and saw an Indian scalping Dale but being over a little eminence he waited until the Indian had finised [sic] and as he arose Carter fired and killed him.  Another Indian ran up to carry his dead comrade away which gave Carter time to load his gun, though in the hurry he rammed the bullet down without patching.  He was however in time to fire on the Indian and wounded him in the shoulder.

After this occurance [sic] John Carter settled on Clinch river where Joseph Salling now lives.  He had married Joseph Blackemore’s daughter and had five children.  In a short time after moving to his farm, having planted his crop and made such other preperations [sic] as were necessary to move back to the fort, he went out early one morning to listen for his horses and cattle which had bells on, intending to collect them up to move to Blackemore fort the next day.  This was locust year and he went out early to collect his stock before the locust’s began their noise.

He had proceeded about sixty yards when he heard his wife cry, Oh! John.  He turned and saw eight or nine savages entering his house and at the same time they fired upon him.

Realizing his perilous situation, he thought it best to make his escape rather than fight and exasperate the savages.  He ran to the fort and collected a company and returned to his home which he found in flames.

With some poles they succeeded in pulling out from the debris the charred remains of his wife and four children which they buried.

They heard a low plaintive groan a little distance from the house in the weeds and grass.  They went to the place and found Carter’s little daughter, about ten years of age, with an awful gash across her stomach.

Her entrails had fallen out on the grass and leaves.  They carried her to the river and wrshed [sic] her, but she died in a few minutes.  Then there John Carter swore eternal vengance [sic] against the Red man and afterwards became a celebrated Indian fighter.

At some future time, I may tell more of his exploits.

(Draper Manusipts, Series C, Daniel Boone Papers, Vol. 6, Reel 4, un-numbered pages.  I decided to make my own transcription of this newspaper clipping.  It’s an interesting tale.  It places Joseph Blakemore in NC, but as far as is known, he never resided there.  He was not called Capt. Blakemore in any records, and the fort was said to have been named after his brother John Blakemore.  Violence between Indians and settlers on the frontier was endemic.  Francis Asbury, the circuit riding Methodist, recorded in a journal entry of  Apr 1790 regarding a visit to Joseph Blackmore’s Station that Blackmore had had a son and daughter killed by Indians.)

BLAKEMORE MISCELLANY:

Joseph Blackmore and Anne his wife of Lancaster Co., VA to Catherine Sydnor and William Sydnor of Lancaster Co., for 200 pounds, a tract of land at the head of Mud Creek formerly called Ramps Creek containing 271 acres except 69 acres, part of a patent sold by John Sanders, father of Anne, to Joseph Ball on 16 Aug 1740.  18 Jul 1760.  Lancaster Co., VA Deeds & Wills 16, 1758-1763, p. 93.  Wit:  Jno Stott, Wm Stott, Jas Bennet.

Joseph Blackmore, 1770 Fauquier Co., VA rent rolls

Joseph Blackmore, tours of duty Lord Dunmore’s War of 1774, under Captains Looney, Patten, Thompson, and Russell.

Montgomery Co., VA Plott Book A, p. 77.  Joseph Blackmore, 75 acres part of the Loyal Company grant, on south side of Clinch River, Fincastle Co., VA, 24 Mar 1774.

Survey Book No. 1, Page 142, Washington Co., VA.  “We the Commissioners of the District of Washington and Montgomery Counties do Certify that Joseph Blackamore heir at law to Edward Blackamore, dec’d, is entitled to four hundred acres of land lying in Washington County on the South side of Clynch bounded by the River hills. and adjoining Samuel Ritchey to include his improvement ha having proved to the Court that he was entitled to the same by actual settlement made in the year 1773.  As witness our hands this 21st day of August 1781.  Jos. Cabell, Harry Innus, R Cabell, James Reed.”  (Bales, Hattie Byrd Muncy.  (1977).  Early Settlers of Lee County, Virginia and Adjacent Counties, Volume II.  Greensboro, NC:  Media, Inc. Printers and Publishers; p. 522.)

Joeseph Blackmore, 1782 Washington Co., VA tax list.

November 1794.  “4.  That fifty-five acres of land conveyed by Frederick Jones to the justices of the peace in the county of Lee, and their successors, for the use of the said county, as the same are already laid off into lots and streets, are hereby established a town, by the name of “Jonesville;” and Frederick Jones, William Ewing, Peter Fulkerson, James Campbell, Joseph Blackemore, Nathaniel Hicks, David Chadwell, Daniel Young, Benjamin Shap, and Moses Cotterell, gentlemen, are appointed trustees thereof.”  (Shepherd’s Continuation of Hening, Vol. 1, p. 322.)

There is no acceptable genetic evidence that any medieval royal or noble bastard was actually the child of the alleged father.  Genealogists claiming descents from medieval kings or nobles through illegitimate children rely on evidence such as charters and chroniclers.  These sources merely indicate reputed paternity and are not proof of the relationship. 

All claims of paternity in cases of illegitimacy that have not been verified with scientific paternity testing should be considered unproved.  The assertion that a medieval king or noble could more accurately identify illegitimate children as their own has no scientific basis.

PRECIS:  The court held that Geoege Spencer’s will had been lawfully proved; that the proof could no longer be disputed; and therefore, Elizabeth Spencer had to comply with the terms of the will, her “pre-nuptial” agreement being void.

You’ve met my ancestor, Major Edward Dale, in several columns on this blog, and you know all about the infamous “twelve pence” clause he extracted from his daughter Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers.

While researching 17th century VA probate practice, I found the following case which neatly ties together concepts regarding the integrity of wills and the position of married women.  The case concerns Elizabeth Spencer, relict of George Spencer of Lancaster Co., VA, the same county that was home to Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale.

George Spencer was dead by 13 Jun 1691, when his will (WB 8, p. 11) was recorded.  Among others, it named his wife Elizabeth, and appointed Capt. Richard Newsom as executor.  Elizabeth was the widow of Thomas Wilke (and had been widowed before she married him), who died intestate by 11 Nov 1685, when Elizabeth as Administratrix was mentioned in a court proceeding. 

The following accounts are taken from Ruth and Sam Sparacio’s excellent transcriptions of Lancaster Co. order books, but for brevity, I’ll just give the dates as they appear in the original record books.

Elizabeth’s 8 year battle with the estate of George Spencer began on 13 Jan 1691/2 when she appeared in the Lancaster Co. court to answer a lawsuit filed against her by Capt. Richard Nusum, executor of her late husband’s will.  The court found the:

“saide Nusum, Executor as aforesd., haveing lawfully citted to this Court the saide Elizabeth to bee present at the proveing of her Husbands Will (and the same being proved by the oathes of three wittnesses), it is a good and lawfull proofe and not now to bee controversed.”

“And further this court are of oppinion that by vertue of the intermarriage between the saide Spencer and Elizabeth, all the goods and chattells that were properly the saide Elizabeths before marriage became rightfully the saide Spencers, And that the instrument made by the saide Spencer to the saide Elizabeth before the saide Coverture is not sufficient in Law to barr the saide Spencer from makeing a Testamt. and Executor. … It is therefore ordered that what Estate did properly belong to the saide Elizabeth before her intermarriage with the saide Spencer and now detained by the saide Elizabeth bee forthwith delivered by the saide Elizabeth Spencer unto the saide Nusum as Executor to the saide Spencer….”

Elizabeth Spencer had made a pre-nuptial agreement (“before the saide Coverture”) with George Spencer regarding certain property from Wilke’s estate.  The court rejected the agreement, saying that she had no title to the property because it had been unadministered, so no legal pre-nuptial agreement existed; and that the property was legally Spencer’s.  The property in question may have been property Elizabeth concealed from the court when she submitted Wilke’s inventory on 16 Jul 1686.

Elizabeth Spencer appealed the court’s judgement to James City, but on 13 Apr 1693, matters had still not been resolved.  Robert Brent, Elizabeth’s attorney, informed the court that his client was always willing to make a complete inventory of any of George Spencer’s property in her hands.

On 14 Nov 1694, Elizabeth Spencer was summoned by the Lancaster Co. sheriff to appear in court and explain why she hadn’t complied with court orders in her lawsuit with Richard Nusum.  Elizabeth exhibited an inventory of her late husband’s property to the court, but on 14 Mar 1694/5 still hadn’t complied.  The court again ordered her to release the property of her late husband she was withholding.  Narrowly escaping prison (on the grounds she couldn’t comply if she was in prison), Elizabeth appealed once more to James City.

Finally, on 10 Aug 1698 we learn what the suit was about: 

“Catherine Scott, a Molattoe Woman Servant to William Man” petitioned the court for her freedom, and the court ordered the appearance of William Man.  Catherine Scott claimed Elizabeth, then a widow, but now married to William Man, had sold her to John Beaching for tanning one thousand hides.  Beaching died before Catherine completed her service, but had planned to marry her; and Catherine said she’d fulfilled her one year’s service to Beaching.  William Man asked to be excused from the case, saying it was a probate matter of the late George Spencer.  The court rejected his plea, and noted that Catherine Scott wasn’t part of the inventory of Spencer’s estate.  Elizabeth, now wife of William Man, had detained “severall other Negroes” from Richard Nusum, executor of George Spencer.  A jury trial ensued, and the jury found Catherine Scott to be free, and ordered Man to release her.  Man appealed to James City.

It all came to an end on 11 Oct 1699 when William Man applied for administration of Elizabeth’s estate.  There’s no mention of the ultimate fate of Catherine Scott.

Husbands couldn’t legally abridge their wives’ dower rights, although sometimes those rights existed more on paper than in practice.  The crafty Edward Dale’s solution to the problem of wives’ diverting the property of deceased planters was to get his daughter Elizabeth, wife of William Rogers, to give up any “claimes.”  This made it difficult for Diana Dale to purloin anything, as Elizabeth had given up rights to her intestate estate. And it worked—no one applied for administraion on Diana Dale’s estate after she died on 31 July 1696.  She had survived her husband about 6 months.

I examine this issue in depth in the “ESTATE SALE” page, but it deserves a column of its own because it addresses some common misconceptions.

In using Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries, I’m giving background on the underpinning of colonial VA law.  Blackstone’s Commentaries were the most commonly used in the colonies until well after the Revolution.  Abraham Lincoln is known to have studied it.  It should be noted that Blackstone’s Commentaries aren’t the only  interpretations of English law for the period. 

As Marylynn Salmon has noted:

“Diversity in colonial law cannot be explained easily.  Obviously there were a number of forces at work in creating the divergent legal codes, some more rational than others.  Many stemmed from the concerns of the Puritans and Quakers, who came to America intent on creating more perfect societies than they had known in England.  They revised the law as part of their general effort at reform.  Other settlers wanted to recreate what was familiar to them, and changed English law only in response to new legal problems, not out of a dissatisfaction with established solutions to the old.  Often lawmakers in different colonies faced similar needs to devise new legal forms appropriate to life in America.”

[Salmon, Marylynn.  (1986).  Women And The Law Of Property In Early America.  Chapel Hill and London:  The University of North Carolina Press; p. 12.] 

According to James Horn:

“They [Virginia's county courts] also took on the functions of English church, manor, and admiralty courts in considering moral offenses, testamentary business, orphans’ estates, parochial affairs, poor relief, land grants, deeds, shipping, and saklvage.

“English laws were the colony’s laws except as modified by local statute.  Recalling the many different branches of English law and variations in custom and custom and practice from one region to another, the development of Virginia and Maryland laws can be interpeted as a form of ‘local tradition’ that involved the simplification of English codes and procedures together with the addition of measures designed to meet conditions peculiar to the Chesapeake.”

[Horn, James.  (1994).  Adapting to a New World English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake.  Chapel Hill & London:  The University of North Carolina Press; pp. 188 & 337.

Virginia statutes superceded English law (as did the laws in other colonies), and when a law appears in Hening's Statutes At Large, that is the law the colonists followed.  Hening's Statutes At Large is the official catalog of the laws of Virginia, beginning in 1619.  A law may have a broader application than the title suggests.  Colonial VA county courts were stripped-down affairs compared to the legal machinery in England.  The justices in these courts were rarely lawyers, but were usually drawn from the "gentlemen" of the county.

Oliver Cromwell generally left VA to run its own affairs, but the cavalier elite of the colony chafed under the rule of the Protectorate.  On 29 May 1660, the monarchy was restored and Charles II declared king, although he was not crowned until 23 Apr 1661.  In March 1661/2, the Assembly ordered that all of its acts made during the Protectorate be reviewed for compliance with the restored government (Hening 2:41-44).  This didn't affect the Virginia probate statute quoted below.

***** 

Colonial testators (e.g., those leaving a will) were under no obligation to provide for their children.  Children couldn't sue for a share of a testator's estate, and testators didn't have to leave children a token legacy.  Genealogists shouldn't assume that when a child was omitted from a will the testator had provided for them in some other way.

The Statute of Wills enacted in 1540 during the reign of Henry VIII permitted testators to leave their property to anyone they chose, without having to observe primogeniture.

Blackstone (Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 675) details the process of probating a will:

"The executor, or the administrator... must prove the will of the deceased:  which is done either in common form, which is only upon his own oath before the ordinary, or his surrogate; or per testes (by witnesses), in more solemn form of law, in case the validity of the will be disputed."

Proving a will by witnesses, although not a requirement, was generally followed in the colony of VA.  It would appear that Blackstone's comments which follow are in reference to wills that have been proved.  In VA wills and testaments weren't considered separate instruments, so the standard phrase is "last will and testament."

Because the courts didn't want wills to fail due to lack of excecution , the rules governing who could serve as executor were quite liberal; even "femes covert" and children were specifically given the right to serve as executors.  (Blackstone Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 669).

The law didn't permit a child to sue for a share of a testator's estate.  As Blackstone (Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 667) observes:

"Hence probably [from Roman law] has arisen that groundless vulgar [common] error, of the necessity of leaving the heir a shilling or some other express legacy, in order to disinherit him effectually:  whereas the law of England makes no such constrained suppositions of forgetfulness or insanity; and therefore, though the heir or next of kin be totally omitted, it admits no querela inofficiosi [disobedient complaint], to set aside a testament.”  [material in brackets mine]

 If a will was proved, it was illegal to challenge it.  A will couldn’t be set aside, even if an heir alleged their omission from the will was due to the testator’s  forgetting to make a bequest or mental illness.  [Under common law, persons found to be legally mentally incapacitated (non compos mentis) were prohibited from making a will.  The wills of such persons were void.  (Book I, Ch. 8 Sub 420-425; Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 656-657.)]  The right to inherit under a will was created by the testator.  

And regarding disnheritance of children (Book I, Ch. 16 Sub 613) he states:

“Our law has made no provision to prevent the disinheriting of children by will ….”

Blackstone makes it absolutely clear the law wasn’t sympathetic to a child who challenged a parent’s will, terming such behavior “disobedient,” and the law provided no remedy if a child received nothing.  It was legal under English law to disinherit a child by will.

As Hening 2:43 (March 1661/2) observes, the courts of Virginia ”endeavoured in all things (as neere the capacity and constitution of this country would admitt) to addhere to those excellent and often refined laws of England, to which we profess and acknowledge all due obedience and reverence, And that the laws made by us are intended by us, but as breife memorialls of that which the capacity of our courts is utterly unabled to collect out of such vast volumes, though sometimes for the difference of our and their condition varying in small things, but far from contradicting anything therein conteyned….”

Colonial VA probate practice deviated from English practice in that Last Wills and Testaments were probated in the county courts.  The county was the basic unit of government.  Although the Anglican church was the established church, it had no jurisdiction in probate matters. 

Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language which fully supports Blackstone:

“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and inviolable, unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the trust reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….” 

This was largely a reiteration of an act of 7 Dec 1656, which declared:

“Be it from henceforth enacted, That all wills and testaments be firme and inviolable, but in case the overseers refuse to execute their trust, then the estates disposed of by will to be liable to such rules as are laid down for the management of estates of persons intestate.”  (Hening 1:416)

The main difference is that the act of March 1661/2 allowed further procedures to find an executor for the will, and disqualified potential executors who would not see to the education of the orphans as directed by the will.  Failure to qualify an executor resulted in the will being administered like an intestate estate; and the probate was consider “Administration with will annexed.”

Blackstone (Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 669) gives the then existing common law regarding “Administration with will annexed”:

“This appointment of an executor is essential to the making of a will: and it may be performed either by express words, or such as strongly imply the same.  But if the testator makes his will, without naming any executors, or if he names incapable persons, or if the executors named refuse to act; in any of these cases, the ordinary* must grant administration cum testamento annexo (with the will annexed) to some other person; and then the duty of the administrator, as also when he is constituted only durante minore aetate, etc., of another [e.g., acting on behalf of a minor who was named executor of a will], is very little different from that of an executor.  And this was law so early as thr reign of Henry II ….”

[*An "ordinary" was a judge of the probate court.  In VA probate matters were handled by the county courts.]

As noted, the VA probate law of 14 Mar 1661/2 added language disqualifying potential executors who would not care for the education of the orphans as directed by a will.

Inviolable means “immune to attack,” or “not capable of being violated or infringed.”  Once a will was “proved,” and accepted for probate, it couldn’t be overturned.  The only exception was if no one would serve as executor; then the estate was declared intestate, and an administrator appointed. 

Sturtz, Linda L.  (2002).  Within Her Power Propertied Women In Colonial Virginia.  New York:  Routledge.

When I decided to overhaul the obsolete research on the Edward Dale/Diana Skipwith family of Lancaster Co., VA, I surveyed the corpus of work on women in colonial Virginia.  I was surprised to find an extensive literature on the subject.  Many of those books are listed in the “Tobacco Road” page.

The most useful of these books has been Linda L. Sturtz’s Within Her Power Propertied Women In Colonial Virginia.  Within its pages one can find answers to most questions a genealogist would have regarding the various liberties of single and married women in the colony.  The footnotes frequently lead to authorities on specific topics only briefly touched upon in the text.

Sturtz, an associate professor of History at Beloit College, uses many of the same records geneaologists use:  court orders, wills, lawsuits, letters, manuscripts, and Hening’s Statutes At Large.  And some more obscure materials, like family papers, account books, and papers presented at professional meetings.  The “Notes” section can serve as a “catalog” of the types of materials currently available to the serious reseacher.

According to Sturtz:

“As long as a woman remained single or widowed, the law deemed her a feme sole, a woman capable of keeping her own earnings, owning property, making contracts, incurring debts, suing or being sued, and writing a will.  Once married, her legal situation changed.  English common law held that the husband and wife became one person and that ‘the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage.’  A married woman was under both the ‘protection’ and ‘influence’ of her husband.  In contrast to the feme sole, a married woman, known as a feme covert, had limited opportunity for legal impact on the world around her and could no longer make contracts, run up debts ‘for anything besides necessaries,’ sue, be sued, or make a will.  Indeed, she did not exist as a legal actor independent of her husband.” (p. 20)

According to Blackstone Book I, Ch. 15 Sub 598:

“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection,and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme covert, foemina viro o-operta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.  Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.”

In Sub 599 he notes that “all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage,” and that a “woman … may be attorney for her husband.”

Sub 600 states:  “The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself: and if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them; but for anything besides necessaries, he is not chargeable.”

Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 659 observes: “But with us a married woman is not only utterly incapable of devising lands, being excepted out of the statute of wills, 34 & 35 Hen. VIII, c. 5 (1542), but also she is incapable of making a testament of chattels, without the license of her husband.  For all her personal chattels are absolutely his own; and he may dispose of her chattels real, or shall have them to himself if he survives her….” (Wills and testaments weren’t separate instruements in colonial VA.)

 Book II, Ch. 19 Sub 394 observes: “But the conveyance or other contract of a feme covert (except by some matter of record) is absolutely void, and not merely voidable; and therefore cannot be affirmed or made good by any subsequent agreement.”

*******

Bob’s Genealogy Filing Cabinet II offers an excellent introduction to colonial law:

http://www.genfiles.com/

[Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780); These quotations are from:

Blackstone, Sir William; Jones, William Carey, ed.  (1915).  Commentaries On The Laws Of England.  San Francisco:  Bancroft-Whitney Company.

which can be downloaded from Google Books.  Citations in parentheses refer to this edition only.]

“In the Name of God Amen the twenty fourth day of Augt 1694 I Edward Dale of the County of Lancastr in Rappk River in Virga Gente being of sound & p’fect memory God bee praised doe make and ordaine this my last Will & Testamt in manner & forme following ffirst I commend my soule into the hands of Almighty God my Creator and Reedeemer my body to the Earth from whence it Came to bee decently interred without any wine drinking as for such worldly Estate as it is pleased God to blesse mee wth I dispose of in manner and forme following , Imps if it shall soe please God that my now wife shall happen to overlive me I give unto her for her maintenance dureing her life the whole pffit of my Estate whatsoever some respect being alwaies had to her as an honest woman a Gentle woman many years my wife and after her decease I give the plantacon wheron I now live to my two Grand Children Peter and Joseph Carter to have and to holde to them and their heirs and assignes forever to bee equally divided betweene them and in Case of the mortality of either of them before they come to the age of one and twenty years then the whole to the survivor and in Case of the mortality of both of them then to my Grand Son Jno Carter  Item I give unto my two Grand sons Peter and Joseph Carter all my instrumts of husbandry upon or belonging to the sd plantacon  Item I give unto my Grand daughter Elizabeth Carter my best bed and the trunck  Item I give unto my two Grandsons Peter and Joseph Carter and to my two grand daughters Elizabeth and Katherine Carter all my P’sonall Estate whatsoever to bee equally devided betweene them and in Case either of the Girls happen to dpart this life before their day of marriage or eighteene years of age I give her part to the survivor  Item I give to my Grandson Peter Carter my Negro boy James & to my Grandson Joseph Carter my molatto boy Robin  Item I give unto my daughter Elizabeth now wife of William Rogers twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever  [*] Item It is my desire for the better improveing of my Estate for the uses aforesaide that my Estate bee continued together upon the saide plantacon and after my wife bee supplied with necessaries and the plantacon likewise yearly I give unto my daughter Katherine Carter and my Granddaughter Elizabeth Carter during her life the p’ffit of all the Estate whatsoever.  Item I doe nominate and appoint my Grandsone Edward Carter and my daughter Katherine Carter and my Grandaughter Elizabeth Carter when she arrives to the age of sixteene yeares of age to bee my Executors  In witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand and seale Dated the day and yeare above written.  Edward Dale ye seale

Signed sealed and published in the presence of

John Chilton p sigr    Tho: Carter junr    Henery Carter

The above will was proved in in the County Court of Lancaster the 11^th day March 1695 by oaths of John Chilton, Thomas Carter, Junior and Henry Carter, witnesses in court. Recorded the 17^th day following by John Stretchley, Clerk of the Court.”

[*] This is the only non-qualified clause in the will.  “Twelve pence” was  a common token amount in the colonial era.

It was legal for “femes covert” (like Katherine Carter) and children (like Elizabeth Carter) to serve as executors of a will (Blackstone Book II, Ch. 32 Sub 669).

[Price (1992) gives a transcription of Edward Dale's will found in Lancaster County, VA Inventory and Wills Book 8-C, pp. 55B-56 1690-1709, with inventory following on pp. 57-58.  Archaic letters have been modernized.  The inventory was taken 30 Mar  1696 (which doesn't fall into the double-dating parameter).  When I first saw this inventory, I thought it must be a final inventory exhibited a year after probate.

But it is the inventory ordered by the Lancaster Co. court on 11 Mar 1695/6.  The transcript in Price lists the estate then being worth 10,607 lbs. of tobacco.  The only items of value remaining were livestock, Indian corn, wheat, and a small amount of tobacco.  Edward White owed the estate 81 lbs. of tobacco.

To put this figure of 10,607 lbs. of tobacco into perspective, on November 12, 1691, Joseph Harrison, son of Daniel Harrison, stated he received 19,486 lbs. of tobacco as his share of the estate.  Daniel Harrison died intestate, and there were 3 Harrison children, so as a crude estimate we can place the worth of Daniel Harrison's estate at some 80,000 lbs. of tobacco, the widow and 3 children dividing the estate equally.  Harrison's estate would have consisted of more than just personal property, which is what's listed in the Dale inventory.  (Sparacio, Court Orders 1691-1695, p. 3.)

Clearly, Edward Dale's estate had been pillaged before the inventory--illegal but convenient--and there was nothing left worth fighting over.  The remaining cattle were probably leaning at a 45 degree angle.  In 1696, a widow couldn't reject the will and sue for her dower, so even though stripping the estate and submitting a phony inventory was illegal, as a practical matter Diana Dale had no recourse.  Compare this garage sale with the inventory of the wealthy Edward Blackmore, returned 8 Sep 1738 in Lancaster County, and you'll see my point. 

In the 17th century, everyone had a very big musket, and possession was 9/10s of the law.  Law enforcement consisted of the Sheriff, and in emergencies. the militia.  The "heirs" could slug it out in court for up to a decade, the defendants employing every delaying tactic known to litigants of the day.  In the end, the courts invariably ordered the property delivered to the rightful owner--that is, if the rightful owner was still living (if not, it went to their heirs), and the property was still in existence.]

There is, in connection with this will, a rather strange deed dated 7 Oct 1687 (Lancaster Co., VA Deeds & Wills 6, pp. 131-132), in which Edward Dale gave unto his daughter Katherine now wife of Thomas Carter two slaves:

a Negro boy called James (aged 7) and a Mollato boy called Robin (aged 5), reserving them to his use for his life, and then to Thomas and Katherine Carter, and after the deaths of Thomas and Katherine, Robin to go to Dale’s grandson Edward Carter, and James (if I make it out correctly) to the rest of Katherine’s children.  Dale sealed the gift by putting Thomas Carter possession of James in presence of witnesses, and by power of attorney to Richard Stephens had the deed recorded on 9 Nov 1687 with the Lancaster County clerk.

This was a difficult document to transcribe, and getting a better copy directly from the deed book would help.  I can find no fault with this deed.  James and Robin were born well after Edward Dale’s marriage to Diana Skipwith, and she would have had dower interest in them had Dale died intestate.  However, the law didn’t require wives to relinquish dower in personal property.  Husbands were known to dispose of personal property prior to their demise to avoid a wife gaining interest in it at his death.  For some reason, Dale willed James and Robin to his grandsons Peter and Joseph Carter–even though he’d earlier conveyed James and Robin to Thomas Carter on 7 Oct 1687:  

“To all those to whom this Present Writing shall come I Edward Dale of the County of Lancastr gent send greeting in our Lord God everlasting Know ye that I the said Edward Dale have for and in Consideracon of the Naturall love and affection which I have and owe unto Katherine my daughter Now wife of Mr Thomas Carter of the said County and her heirs & assigns for divers other Causes and Consideracons hereunto moving have given granted and by these presents do give and Confirm unto the aforsd Thomas Carter one Negro boy called James about Seven years old and one Molatto boy called Robin about five years old To have and to hold the said two Boys unto the said Thomas Carter his heirs Administrs and Assigns forever to ye sole intent and purposes hereafter mentioned and … that is to say to the use of me the said Edward Dale during my Naturall life and after my decease to the use of the said Thomas Carter & Katherine his wife and the life of the longest living of them and after Both shall decease said Mollotto Boy Robin to my grandson Edward Carter and the Negro Boy James to ye rest of my said Daughter Katherine her Children to all share ye Purpose whatsoever with warrant against all persons whatsoever that shall or may be By from or under me And I the said Edward Dale have hereby Put the sd Thomas Carter in possession of these two Boys by delivery of the said James in Witness Whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale Dated this Seventh day of October Ano. Dom 1687

Edward Dale his seal

Sealed and delivered and the sd boy James delivered to the said Thomas Carter in the presence of –

Edward White

John Gill

Ruth White

Recognitr in Cur Court Lanc Nonet die Novembr Ano Dom 1687 – Recordr un demino  …

Peter James Dep Clk

I do Authorize & Appoint Richard Stephens as my Lawfull Attorney to Acknowledge this deed for and on my behalf at … of Lancastr as Witness my hand this 9 day of November 1687

Edward Dale

Test Edward White

        Ruth White

Recorded in Cur Court Lanr. Nonet die November Ano Dom 1687

Peter James Deputy Clerk”

I’d like the reader to observe one thing about this deed:  Although the reason Edward Dale gifted these slaves was out of affection for his daughter Katherine, the actual conveyance was made to Thomas Carter, her husband.

If there was no problem with the conveyance, and Dale simply changed his mind, to avoid any cloud on the title there should be another document prior to the will nullifying this deed.  There isn’t.  Given the litigious nature of the colonists, it was quite an assumption that Edward Carter wouldn’t sue for possession of Robin.  Edward Dale mentioned no other slaves by name in his will, but they would have descended to Peter, Joseph, Elizabeth, and Katherine Carter.

You can learn much by leafing through court orders and deed books, and Lancaster Co., VA Deed Book 9, pp. 51-52 has the answer:  Edward Carter didn’t take it lying down–he had a valid deed, and Edward Dale couldn’t dispose of Edward Carter’s property in his own will.  This new deed, dated 24 Jun 1703, finds Thomas Carter (Jr.), Henery Carter, and John Carter–not the original legatees–acknowledging Edward Dale’s gift to Thomas Carter Sr. and Catherine his wife, and confirming ownership of  Robin to Edward Carter, citing the 7 Oct 1687 deed. 

A testator can’t dispose of property that has been previously legally conveyed.  Obviously there was a problem, but what happened?

This is the only anomaly in the transmission of Edward Dale’s estate.  It’s possible Elizabeth Rogers’ “twelve pence” clause related to these slaves, although she couldn’t have had a direct interest in them.  Evidently Edward Dale thought it prudent to pull back the sale, and when he wrote his will he bequeathed James and Robin again.  That was illegal—and ultimately Edward Carter was confirmed in his possession of Robin, but he had to bind 3 of his brothers in a pact not to challenge his ownership.

Diana (Skipwith) Dale’s brother Grey Skipwith died ca. 1680 in Middlesex Co., VA.  His will is lost, but one might reasonably expect he would have left his sister something.  Slave women and their increase (children born of them) were common gifts.

Whatever the prior history of James and Robin, it may have been that Diana Dale regarded them as hers.  James and Robin were separated by only two years and might have been siblings, and perhaps one reason for this deed was that their mother was dead.  Of course, this is a theory, but it’s clear William and Elizabeth Rogers had no direct interest in James and Robin.  Had they been part of a trust or separate estate for Elizabeth, Edward Dale would have had to address that when he made the conveyance to the Carters on 7 Oct 1687.

In 1705, the Virgnia Assembly declared:

“That from and after the passing of this act, all negro, mullato, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be real estate (and not chattels;) and shall descend to the heirs and widows of persons departing this life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.

“That all such slaves shall be liable to the paiment of debts, and may be taken by execution, for that end, as other chattels or personal estate may be.

“That no person, selling or alienating any such slave, shall be obliged to cause such sale or alienation to be recorded, as is required by law to be done, upon the alienation of other real estate:  But that the said sale or alienation may be made in the same manner as might be done before the making of this act.

“That it shall and may be lawful, for any person, to sue for, and recover, any slave, or damage, for the detainer, trover, or conversion thereof, by action personal, as might have been done if this act had never been made.”

[Hening/pp. 3:333-334.]

The 1705 legislation meant that although slaves were henceforth considered real estate (and later reclassified as personal property again with some modification), the sale would still proceed as a sale of personal property, as was done before the act.

Chipman III, John Hale.  (1970).  A Chipman Genealogy circa 1583-1969 Beginning With John Chipman (1620-1708), – First Of That Surname To Arrive In The Massachusetts Bay Colony – And His Twelve Successive Generations, Today In Alaska, Australia, Canada, And The United States compiled by John Hale Chipman III (#683).  Norwell, Massachusetts:  Chipman historics.

White, Elizabeth Pearson; Coles, Edwin Wagner.  (2003).  Who Were The Chipmans Of Delaware And Maryland.  “Mayflower Descendant,” Winter 2003, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 19-38; Summer 2003, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 111-118.  Boston:  Massachusetts Society Of Mayflower Descendants (state chapter of General Society of Mayflower Descendants).

White and Coles begin their two part series in their “Mayflower Descendant” article (p. 19), as follows.:

“For 150 years the relationship among the various Chipman families of Delaware and Maryland have been misstated and misunderstood.”

And on p. 35, footnote 156, they term A Chipman Genealogy “defective.”  

The article takes these families to the 5th generation from the pilgrim John Howland, with a listing of their children as the 6th generation.  After that, you’re on your own.

****** 

I’d like to make the reader aware of something before I continue this discussion:  undocumented books like A Chipman Genealogy ARE UNACCEPTABLE proof on a lineage society application for any society.  Books such as Gary Boyd Roberts’ The Royal Descents Of 600 Immigrants are also UNACCEPTABLE because Roberts lumps all of his sources at the end of the line, and doesn’t quote verbatim sections of the source so readers can judge if the source supports Roberts’ assertions.  Assertions made by posters on unregulated Internet message boards are UNACCEPTABLE.  All such assertions should be checked for accuracy to see if the evidence quoted exists and whether it supports the conclusion.  Primary source records ARE ACCEPTABLE, and documented journal articles USUALLY ARE, among other types of evidence that may be acceptable.  If you are in doubt about what evidence is acceptable to join a lineage society, contact the society and they will give you their requirements. 

I’ve heard from many members of the Chipman family who are disappointed that the biographies of their ancestors in A Chipman Genealogy are unacceptable.  The nucleus of this book was based on obsolete research done up to 1920, especially by Alberto Lee Chipman.  Only 500 were printed.  Some larger genealogical libraries have copies, but I can’t currently locate one online.  Mine is a little worse for wear.

A Chipman Genealogy was published by a vanity press–a publisher you pay to print anything you want.  Confused?  The author paid a printing company X dollars for 500 books, and then sold them, along with a reproduction of a coat of arms, and a cast replica of a spoon allegedly found in a building that once was a tavern owned by a Chipman. 

Was his text approved by the Mayflower Society?  No.   Are there genuine Mayflower lines in the book?  Absolutely, although you might not recognize them.  Did anybody look at the content of the book?  Only the typesetter.  

General Society of Mayflower Descendants operates a website at:

http://www.themayflowersociety.com/

When a line is disproved, lineage societies usually require subsequent applicants to prove the line again with satisfactory evidence.  Ordinarily, that will be impossible because the line is invalid.  

Many biographies in A Chipman Genealogy cite no evidence at all, and the author didn’t demand any.  Some errors resulted from mistakenly identifying individuals with the same, often common, given name in two different locations as the same person, without any supporting evidence.  Other errors, like giving a Chipman an exact date of death when he really died decades later, or the same children as another Chipman, are more difficult to understand.

In a letter dated January 15, 1967 (see below), the author, John Hale Chipman III wrote:

“If you do not have documentary evidence of facts and dates, but they are generally accepted, will you list them just the same, putting a ? mark side of each.” 

The ? marks didn’t make it into A Chipman Genealogy .  There’s page after page without any documentation.  This stuff is mixed in with the few biographies that cite a will, deed, military or bible record.  The author plugged lines in anywhere and everywhere.

Eugene Aubrey Stratton was burned, as he wrote in 1986:

“There have been several family histories of the Chipman family, a recent one being John Hale Chipman, A Chipman Genealogy (Norwell, Mass., 1970), which, though not adequately documented, is generally good.”

[Plymouth Colony, p. 263.]

I have found Stratton’s Applied Genealogy useful for persons of British colonial ancestry, but his opinion of A Chipman Genealogy is way off:  John Hale Chipman III, if not an outright fraud, was one of the 20th century’s worst genealogists—and the tradition of pedigree peddling continues with several modern practioners of the “art.”

Here’s a flyer John Hale Chipman III sent out:

I’d like to direct the reader’as attention to the upper left corner, which has a list of organizations the author “belonged to.”  There are nine.  Looks impressive, doesn’t it?

But of those nine, only three are actual lineage societies:  Mass. Society Mayflower Descendants; Sons of the Revolution (like SAR, only your ancestor has to have been a Revolutionary War soldier, not just a patriot in any capacity); and The Pilgrim John Howland Society (obviously, if you’re a member of Mayflower Society through Hope Howland, you can waltz into this).

The first society listed, the Society of Genealogists, London (now known as the Society of Genealogists), is one of the six that are open to anyone with a checkbook.  Being a “member,” as opposed to a “Fellow”, has nothing to do with the qualifications or expertise of the “genealogist.”  It’s a charitable organization promoting family history research in the UK.  But Americans, many of whom consider the British to be snobs, nonetheless crave the imprimatur of some snobby British organization—a fact certainly not lost on John Hale Chipman III.  Of course, John Hale Chipman III didn’t claim his efforts had been endorsed by the Society of Genealogists—but in the mind of the average reader it sounds rather like the College of Arms.  It is, however, a worthwhile organization if you’re into British research:

http://www.sog.org.uk/

Ask a few intelligent questions.  Don’t be  a bumpkin—reject shoddy work designed to pander to the innate desire for illustrious ancestry.  Your family has a story.  Find it and document it.

“[The Mayflower pilgrims] … saw them the vessel after the boat’s return came up to the place of their intended settlement and they all landed and prepared huts for to live in, but poor distressed souls they being disappointed of other vessels coming over to them for a great while to supply them with provisions and other necessities as expected

 “Sundry of these poor distressed people died and all was in imanent danger of perishing, if it had not been for the Clams they found on the shores and dugg up at low tide, but it was especially from the Supp & turkeys obtained in quantities [from] the native Indians … which corn they ate and paid the Indians for the spring after as soon as they had gained acquaintance with them who had been very shy of them.

 “My said Grandfather John Chipman born 1615 Married a Daughter of the aforesaid Mr. Howland and settled at Barnstable, the next Town but one which is Sandwich, to their Said Plimouth further on the Said Cape Cod, Plimouth being being at the head of the Bay.  he my Said Grandfather was an Elder in Minister Russels Congregational Church, in said Barnstable, and if I am not mistaken removed and lived in Said Sandwich the Latter part of his Day.  He died aged 88.  He had or left 10 children of which my honored father was the Youngest.  his children generally lived to grow up and Marry and from whom proceeded a very Numerous offspring.  As my Grandfather was the only one of the name of Chipman and my Grandmother Daughter of the only one of the name of Howland in New England or any of the now States of America, so the Chipmans are all on this Continent Related as well as the Howlands, and are all of them by reason of my Grandfather and grandmothers Marriage together Related to one another, and so near that Long Since my Remembrance my dear father and the Howlands used to call Cuzzens and the Howlands was often conversant at my house and my fathers house &c.

 “My Dear and Honored Deceased father John Chipman, married one Capt. Skiffs daughter of said Sandwich, by whom he had 9 children that all Lived to grow up to the years of Men and Women, from whom has sprang a very large offspring.  Their names were Sons, James, Perez, John, Ebenezer and Stephen.  The Daughters names were Bethia and Mary, twins, as was also the Son Said Stephen with the next daughter Lidia, the others name was Deborah.  They had all entered into the Marriage State and had generally Large families of Children, Except said Stephen, who had no Children by his wife, Dying Master of a Vessel young in Nevis in the West Indies.  They were mostly of more than middling size.  James was a clothier by Trade, Perez was a Blacksmith as was also Ebenezer, John was a farmer and Stephen a cooper by trade.  They scattered much in their Settling in families. 

“My dear fathers first wife dying at said Sandwich, Leaving said nine children, He some time after, it may be two years, married her that was my dear Mother, at Capt. Popes at Dartmouth, her first husband was his oldest Son, her second husband was one Capt. Russel, with whom I have been told She lived about 17 months, at Rhode Island or near there about….  She had no Child or Children that Lived by Either of these husbands.  by my dear father She had my Self, her son Handley, and my dear sister Rebecca.  Soon after her birth my dear Father removed from Sandwich to Martha Vineyard, where he lived it may be 7 years. 

“Just about a year after my dear Mothers Death, my dear Father married the Said widow Case at Newport on Said Rhode Island.  She had had two husbands, one a Griffin, the other said Capt. Case.  by said Griffin She had a daughter who lived to grow up and Married my Said dear father Son Stephen, who died in Said West Indies Leaving no Child.  My Mother in Law’s maiden name was Mary Hoockey, and after my dear father had Lived with her 19 years She died also with the Consumption.  She was a Baptist.  My dear father soon after he thus Married at Rhode Island, sold his farm at the Vineyard, to one Mr. Norton for L1200, money then at s5/pr. ounce.  he removed then to Rhode Island and Let his money to Interest, but it depreciating fast, he called it in and went to shopkeeping. 

“He was when he lived at Sandwich, Crowner or Coroner, a Capt. Lieutenant, and a Representative to the General Assembly at Boston, as I find, by his Commission Left.  While he lived on the Vineyard he was Justice of the Peace and one of the Judges of the Inferior Court, &c. 

“After he removed to Rhode Island Government, he was for some time the first of the Governors Council, and was also Chief Judge of the Superior Court or court of Equity, as it was then called, and continued in said office until he was about 70 years old when he of choice flung up all offices by reason of his old age, and soon after my Mother in Law dying he Left off his Shopkeeping, broke up housekeeping, and went to live with my own Sister who had married a worthy person, a Capt. Moore. 

“My dear and Honoured Father was born March 3d day, A.D. 1670.  He departed this Life at Newport on Rhode Island, January 4 th day, 1756, in my house, where he had lived some years, after he broke up housekeeping, he went and Lived at Capt. David Moors as aforesaid who married my own only Sister, but she dying in a few years after, he then came to Live with me. 

“I would before I conclude the Pedigree of my dear fathers family just mention that I have divers times inquired after the family of the Chipmans coat of arms but never could get Intelligence of it.  And am lately informed that Ward Chipman, Esq. Solisiter General in our Neighboring Province of Brunswick Government, when he was in England a few years past, made very thorough Search after our family coat of arms, and finds we have none at all, &c. 

“But the Chipmans in America are very Numerous indeed.  they are, we are, Sure all related, for they are all of them descended from my said Grandfather.  we find they are Spread even from Canso * Eastward to Virginia Westward, if not farther both ways.” 

* A fishing village on the eastern tip of mainland Nova Scotia. 

[“A Chipman Family History,” by Handley Chipman (1717-1799) of Newport, R.I., and Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, composed ca. 1790, in: 

Roberts, Gary Boyd; ed.  (1985).  Genealogies of Mayflower Families From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register Volume I Adams-Fuller.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 

Handley Chipman's statement validates the Chipmans of Virginia as authentic descendants of John and Hope (Howland) Chipman, but supporting documentation still needs to be assembled.] 

For Mayflower history & genealogy see: 

Philbreck, Nathaniel.  (2006).  Mayflower A Story of Courage, Community, and War.   New York:  Viking Penguin Group.

Philbreck, Nathaniel; Philbreck, Thomas; eds.  (2007).  The Mayflower Papers Selected Writings of Colonial New England.  New York:  Penguin Group. 

Roser, Susan E.  (1995).  Mayflower Increasings 2nd Edition.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 

Stratton, Eugene Aubrey.  (1986).  Plymouth Colony Its History & People 1620-1691.  Salt Lake City:  Ancestry Publishing.

The Chipman family has long had an interest in genealogy.  Between Handley Chipman’s manuscript of ca. 1790 and Richard Manning Chipman’s pioneering efforts in the second half of the 19 th century, there’s this item, sent to me by the late William G. Chipman of Greenville, MS.

Dated 1832, it’s in the collection of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia, and was written by Handley Chipman’s son Stephen Chipman.  The following are extracts from this manuscript (call no. MG100 Vol. 120 #53a).  Stephen Chipman’s portion consists of 19 pages, with an additional 2 by other writers, and 2 photocopies of an old newspaper clipping concerning celebrations at Plymouth in honor of the Mayflower.  

____________________

“Sketch of the History and Genealogy of the Chipman Family (particularly the branch who settled in Nova Scotia) descended from John Chipman The Pioneer.  Written by Stephen Chipman Annapolis, N.S.  1832 –

 “The C.’s from my G.G. Father [John Chipman who m. Hope Howland] are spread into N.S. New Brunswick, the Northern States Virginia & Vermont &c.

“May they still be blessed as heretofore, still experience Gods peculiar Providence; and may we all at last join as one in the holy train of our dear Redeemer in singing his praises.

“I begin … with my GG Father John C. who came to New England when young, from Dorsetshire England In the reign of Charles first, married a daughter of Mr Howland who was the first settler who landed at Plymouth in 1620, being the first to spring from the boat belonging to the first ship that came to P[lymouth] with settlers, being driven from their native country, by the persecutions against liberty of Conscience in the exercise of their religion.

“The stone Mr. Howland landed on I have been informed has been removed to the third street of the town of P[lymouth] to keep in memory the immigration of their forefathers and the day is celebrated by public thanksgiving and rejoicing.

“In consequence of this marriage the opulent & honored family of the Howlands in New England are related to us – He had ten children … was an elder in Minister Russells church Barnstable Cape Cod, and died aged 88 years.”

[Material in brackets mine.]

________________________

The tale of John Howland stepping onto Plymouth Rock is dramatic, but is it true?

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln established the holiday of Thanksgiving, enshrining the Mayflower Pilgrims as our most recognizable national icons.  Everyone loves the Pilgrims because Thanksgiving kicks off a four day weekend.

The story of Plymouth Rock dates to 1741, about 120 years after the Pilgrims landed.  95 year old Thomas Faunce claimed he’d been told by his father, who’d immigrated to Plymouth in 1623, that the boulder now known as Plymouth Rock was where the Pilgrims had first landed.  So in 1774, the Sons of Liberty, led by Col. Theophilus Cotton, arrived in Plymouth and dug the Rock from beneath a pier.  While attempting to load it onto a waggon, it split in half.

They left half of it where it lay and deposited the other half in the town square beside a Liberty Pole.  In 1834, the piece of the Rock in the Plymouth town square, much abused by souvenir-seeking tourists, was moved to Pilgrim Hall.  In the process, the Rock fell to the ground and once again split in two.  Cemented back together, it was mounted in front of the Hall.

Just before the Civil War, the Pilgrim Society bought the wharf containing the other half of the Rock.  They thought it absurd to have two Plymouth Rocks, so in 1880 the half ensconced at Pilgrim Hall was transported back to the waterfront and the halves were reunited.

As Nathaniel Philbrick puts it:  “Today Plymouth is a mixture of the sacred and the kitsch, a place of period houses and tourist traps, where the Mayflower II sits quietly beside the ornate granite edifice that now encloses the mangled remains of Plymouth Rock.”

John Howland was from Fenstanton, Huntingdonshire, the son of Henry and Margaret Howland.  He took passage on the Mayflower as Gov. John Carver’s indentured servant.  As luck would have it, though not for his employers, the Carvers died the first spring, and Howland had no masters—and perhaps received a portion of their estate. 

Howland is best known for being blown overboard during the Mayflower passage.  Though submerged, he held onto a halyard and was hauled to safety.  If anyone was going to step onto Plymouth Rock, Howland was a natural candidate, probably eager to feel terra firma beneath his feet. 

Unfortunately, the story isn’t mentioned in contemporary accounts.  While I’m certain Mayflower passengers did step onto the boulder (it was difficult to ignore), whether it was the first spot stepped onto at the landing may be more myth than history. 

____________________________________

Chipman historians refer to our immigrant ancestor John Chipman as “apprenticed” to his cousin Richard Derby.  He was in fact Derby’s indentured servant, probably employed as a carpenter.  That may have endeared him to John Howland, who allowed Chipman to marry his daughter Hope.

John Chipman had two sisters, Hannah and Thomasine, of whom nothing is known.  It’s possible that some relations of his still exist in Britain.  The Chipman home was at Brinspittle about five miles from Dorchester in Dorsetshire.  John’s father Thomas owned property worth 40-50 pounds per year and held by entail in Whitechurch Canonicorum, a strange place where the church had a grope-hole to touch saintly relics.  Domesday Book, compiled 1086/7,  records the church at ”Whitchurch Canonicorum” as held by the Church of Saint-Wandrille, so it was a place of some antiquity.   Of course Thomas managed to lose the property in an annuity or loan scheme, and so began the saga of the Chipmans in North America.

Without going into details gleaned from the meagre sources, suffice it to say Whitechurch Canonicorum was the actual home of the Chipman family, Brinspittle being merely the place Thomas Chipman was dumped after the loss of his property.  John Chipman’s mother (name unknown) was living when John set sail for the New World.

The Dorset History Centre has significant holdings relating to Whitechurch Canonicorum, and those records should be searched.  A check of the UK “a2a” database for the period of 1450-1650 shows no mention of a Chipman at Whitechurch Canonicorum.  Some of the parish of Whitechurch Canonicorum and the related manor of Marshwood Vale found its way into the hands of Queen Mary, who on 24 Oct 1553 made a grant to Gertrude, Marchioness of Exeter.  The manor of Whitechurch Canonicorum can be traced in records dating well into the medieval period.

Several “a2a” entries show a Chapman family living in Whitechurch Canonicorum prior to the time John Chipman emigrated to Plymouth ca. 1637, and this item contains some family details:

A lease for 99 years dated 3 Oct 1638 between Thomas Chapman, aka William Chapman *, of Whitchurch, Dorset, yeoman, son of Thomas Chapman, son of Thomas Chapman late of Haydon, Dorset, and the estate of William Vinacombe the elder and the estate of William Love alias Megges; land located in Axminster, Devonshire; fine 10 pounds.

[* The name by which he was usually known.]

“Chipman” is a spelling variation of “Chapman,” so an alleged connection to a “de Chippenham” family living at the time of William the Conqueror is fantasy.  In English records even simple surnames have many variations—of the same person from record to record or within the same record.  The search for the antecedents of Thomas Chipman, father of John Chipman,  should focus on localities rather than the exact spelling of the surname.  Since our family was of yeoman rather than gentry stock extending the known pedigree may prove difficult.

“Chipman” might just have been Elder John Chipman’s preferred spelling of his surname, his ancestors having been known as “Chapman” or “Chepman,” etc.  The tale of his father Thomas losing a substantial property in Whitechurch Canonicorum remains to be documented. 

I’ve outlined in “Page e.” the descent of Mary Minor, wife of James Chipman (grandson of John and Hope) from Aethelred II, King of England.  The connection with the Giffards through whom the descent passes had some standing with the Chipman family.  After the death of Hope (Howland) Chipman, John Chipman married Ruth (Sargent) Winslow Bourne, daughter of Rev. William Sargent.  Sargent’s 3rd great-grandparents were John Giffard and Agnes Winslow, an ancestry shared with Alice Freeman, Mary (Minor) Chipman’s 2nd great-grandmother. 

John Chipman had no children by Ruth, but following his death on 8 Apr 1708 she had him interred in the Bourne cemetary plot in the Sandwich Old Burying Ground. 

 His first wife Hope (Howland) Chipman is buried in Lothrop Hill Cemetary in Barnstable.  Her grave marker is the second oldest grave marker on Cape Cod.

Sir William Skipwith (d. July 7, 1547) married first ca. June 1, 1505, Elizabeth Tyrwhit, daughter of Sir William Tyrwit of Kettleby in Lincolnshire, by whom he had one son:

Sir William Skipwith, who also married an Elizabeth, as shown in this a2a abstract from the Lincolnshire Archives dated Nov. 12, 1564:

“Contents:

“(Counterpart)

“Sir William Skipwith kt. and Dame Elizabeth his wife to Sir Ralph Chamberlain, Sir John Tyrrell, Sir Edward Dymock Knights and Andrew Gedney, Esq.  Consideration:  marriage of Richard Skipwith son and heir of Sir William and Elizabeth and Mary Chamberlaine a daughter of Sir Ralph.  Property:  manors of Cawthorpe and Manby, Aswarby, settled in tail male on the heirs of Richard and Mary with remainder  to the male heirs of Sir William’s brothers (Lionel, John, George and Henry) in order of age.”

Douglas Richardson in Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 752-753, gives this account of the children of Sir William Skipwith by Elizabeth Tyrwhit and Alice Dymoke:

[Sir William Skipwith] “married (1st) before 1510 Elizabeth Tyrwhit (or Tyrwhitt), daughter of William Tyrwhit, Knt., of Kettleby, Lincolnshire.  They had one son, William, Knt.  He married (2nd) Alice Dymoke, daughter and co-heiress of Lionel Dymoke, Knt., of Mareham-on-the-Hill, Lincolnshire, by his 1st wife, Joan, daughter of Rhys Griffith, Esq…. They had four sons, Lionel, John, Esq., George and Henry, Esq., and seven daughters, Jane (wife of Richard Bolle), Mary (wife of George Fitzwilliam), Dorothy (wife of Arthur Gedney), Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Clifford), Margaret (wife of George Tailboys, 2nd Lord Tailboys, Peter Carew, Knt., and John Clifton, Knt.), Anne (wife of William Hatcliffe), and Bridget (wife of — Cave).”

Richardson notes that Sir Lionel Dymoke and his widow Anne, who was not the mother of his children, left wills, but doesn’t quote the contents.  On p. 106 he states that Sir Lionel Dymoke’s surviving children were two daughters, Alice and Anne; Anne was the younger and married John Goodrick ca. 1518.

Where did Richardson get his list of children?

I don’t have the specific visitations of Yorkshire he cites.  I do have Lincolnshire Pedigrees, and here’s the chart contained therein, which I’ve adapted:

CP shows Sir William Skipwith’s daughter Margaret who married George Tailboys (b. ca. 1522) was a daughter of Alice Dymoke, so we might place her birth as ca. 1522, assuming she was born about the same time as her husband:

“George (Tailboys), Lord Tailboys… was b. about 1522…. m., between 26 Apr. and 15 May 1539, (h) Margaret, cousin to his guardian, William [Fitzwilliam], Earl of Southampton, niece of Sir Thomas Henneage, (l) and da. of Sir William Skipwith, of Ormsby, co. Lincoln, by his 2nd wife, Alice, da. and coh. of Sir Lionel Dymoke, of Mareham-on-the-Hill, co. Lincoln.”  {The Complete Peerage (1953) Vol. XII Pt. 1, pp. 603-604.}

Sir Thomas Heneage, d. 21 August 1553, m. Catharine Skipwith, dau. of John and Catharine (Fitzwilliam) Skipwith. 

Sir Lionel Dymoke left a will in 1519 (PCC Ayloffe), and his widow Anne in 1521 (PCC Maynmaryng).  Alice (Dymoke) Skipwith, widow of Sir William Skipwith, also left a will, dated June 29, 1549, and probated April 26, 1550 (PCC Coode).  I downloaded all three wills from the UK The National Archives website.

The images are clear and of good quality, but the first page of Sir Lionel Dymoke’s will suffers from bleed-through.  Probate proceedings are in Latin.  The text of Sir Lionel Dymoke’s will was given in English and Latin; the text of the others in English only.  Lionel and Anne’s wills are short. 

I understand enough of the writing in Alice Skipwith’s will to determine it’s Sir William Skipwith’s widow.  We can place her death as ca. 1550.  It’s a lengthy affair–at the time it was written, her daughter Margaret (“my daughter Taylboys”) was still the wife of George Tailboys.  She mentions her children, including “henry Skipwith my sonne.” 

I’m no expert at deciphering 16th century English handwriting, so the wills of Sir Lionel Dymoke and his widow Anne, which predate Alice Skipwith’s will by about 30 years, are very difficult to read.  I can’t tell if either of them mention Sir Lionel Dymoke’s daughters.  Sir Lionel Dymoke mentions his father Thomas Dymok.  His bequests appear to be to friends and the church.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the wills of Lionel or Anne didn’t mention Lionel’s daughters.  Prior to the probate reform of 1540 important arrangements for a father’s children were made in other ways. 

*****

Henry Skipwith, son of Sir William Skipwith and Alice Dymoke, was ancestor to the Skipwiths of Virginia.

In connection with the marriage of Sir William Skipwith to Alice Dymoke, the a2a website has this abstract:

“These documents are held at Lincolnshire Archives [Paper, a single sheet.]

Contents:

“Of John Compton, collector of rents of Sir William Skipwith through the right of his wife Alice, daughter and coheir of Sir Lyon Dymoke in Maring cum aliis villatis (Mareham).  Michaelmas, 1538 to the same 1540.  [Horncastle, Upper Toynton, Haltham, Scrafield, Roughton and Claxby].”

Michaelmas is a day in the Christian calendar which falls on September 29th, and was one of the English, Welsh, and Irish quarter days when accounts had to be settled. 

*****

Alice Dymoke was a descendant of the Capetian kings of France through Edward I’s second queen Margaret (Marguerite), daughter of king Philip III.  The Dymoke and Welles arms are on the achievement* at the tomb of Alice’s grandson, Sir William Skipwith (d. 1610), in the church at Prestwould, and his right to display those arms are confirmed by Alice (Dymoke) Skipwith’s will.

INSCRIPTIONS

On the south wall of the chancel, in the year 1631, was erected a very fair monument of alabaster and touch, coloured and gilt, erected for Sir William Skipwith, of Cotes, knight, and Lady Jane his second wife, at the cost and expense of the said Lady Jane; where, under an arch, lie both their proportions, neatly cut and graven.  Sir William has a piked beard and hair, plated armor, trunk hose, sword by his side; a mattress under him.  At his feet his crest.  His lady had a ruff, and hood falling back; double falling ruffles, and mantle; her head on a cushion; Plate LII fig. i.

On the top of the arch standeth an old atchievement, in an oval frame, with these coats; fig. 2.

1.  Argent, three bars Gules, a greyhound in chief, courant Sable.  Skipwith.

2.  Quarterly, Sable and Argent, a bend Or.  Langton.

3.  Argent, three bars Azure, charged with as many cross crosslets Or.  Memthorpe.

4.  Azure, three crescents Argent.  Thorpe.

5.  Argent, on a cross engrailed Sable, five mascles Or.  Arches.

6.  Argent, a cross engrailed Gules.  De la Lind.

7.  Azure, a lion rampant Ermine.                        } Ormesby.

8.  Sable, three chessrooks Argent, a chief Or.     }

9.  Quarterly, Ermine and Vaire, Or and Azure.  Gibthorpe.

10. Or, a chevron Gules between three Fleurs de lis Vert.  Hiltoft.

11. Or, frette Azure, in a canton Gules, a cross Moline Argent.  Mumby or Willoughby.

12. Sable, a falcon sitting upon a trunk of a tree Or.  Le Muer.

13. Sable, a fess between three mullets Or.  Dimok.

14. Sable, two lions passant in pale Ermine, coronne Or.  Heronville.

15. Vaire, Argent and Azure, a fess Gules, frette Or.  Marmion.

16. Sable, a sword in pale, point towards the chief Argent, hilted Or.  Kilpeck.

17. Ermine, four fusils in fess Gules.  Hebden.

18. Or, a lion rampant queue fourche Sable.  Welles.

19. Gules, a fess dauncette between six cross crosslets crossed Or.  Engaine.

20. Barry of Six, Ermine and Gules;over all three crescents Sable.  The crest; a turnpike Gules, the foot Or.  Waterton.

In the spandrils of the arch are two less escutcheons:

Skipwith; impaling, Azure, fretty Argent, Cave.

Skipwith, impaling, Party per pale, Argent and Gules alion rampant Sable, Roberts; fig. 3,4.

Under the arch, on a table of touch, this epitaph:

To frame a man who in those guiftes excelles,

Which make the cuntry happy where hee dwelles,

We first conceive what names his line adorne:

It kindles Virtue to be nobly borne.

This picture of true Gentry must bee gracd

With glittering jewells round about him placd;

A comely body, and a beauteous mind;

A heart to love, a hand to give inclind;

A house as free and open as the ayre;

A tonge which joyes in language sweete and faire;

Yet can, when need requires, with courage bold

To publike eares his neighbors griefs unfold:

All these we never more shall find in one;

And yit all these are closd within this stone.

Below, on two smaller tablets of touch, thus written:

1.  HERE LYETH THE BODY OF SIR WILLIAM SKIPWITH, OF COOTES, KNIGHT, AND DAME JANE SKIPWITH, HIS LAST WIFE, BEING THE DAUGHTER AND HEIRE OF JOHN ROBERTES, OF WOLLASTONE, IN THE COUNTRY OF NORTHAMPTON, ESQ.  HE DEPARTED THIS LIFE ON THE 3^RD DAY OF MAY, IN THE YEARE OF OUR LORD 1610; AND SHEE LIVED TWENTY YEARS AFTER HIM; AT WHOSE COST AND CHARDGES THIS MONUMENT WAS ERECTED, ANNO 1631.

2.  HIS FIRST WIFE WAS MARGARET CAVE, DAUGHTER OF ROGER CAVE, OF STANFORD, LEASTERSHIERE, ESQ.; BY WHOM HE HAD FOURE SONS AND FOURE DAUGHTERS:  THE ELDEST WHEREOF IS SR HENRY SKIPWITH, KNIGHT AND BARONETT.

[The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, by John Nichols, Vol. 3, Part 1 (London, 1800) pages 358-359 containing EAST GOSCOTE HUNDRED.  Monumental inscription in the Church of PRESTWOULD (dedicated to Saint ANDREW):  Page 357 of the above volume records that Dame Jane (JOANNA) Skipwith was buried in the church of PRESTWOULD on 4 Apr 1630 and that Amy (Kemp) SKIPWITH was buried on 7 Sep 1631.  Price, pp. 29-30.]

The description of the achievement refers to “Mumby or Willoughby.”  ”Mumby” is not a family, but a well-traveled manor of that name in Lincolnshire, once held by Sir Lionel Dymoke, among others.  For the Willoughby family, see below.

*A heraldic assemblage of certain components, among them the arms the individual was entitled to display.

*****

I haven’t verified the marriage between Sir Thomas Skipwith and Margaret, allegedly daughter of John Lord Willoughby.   An a2a abstract dated June 6, 1422 shows that Robt. Lord Willoughby of Eresby, Robt. Hilton kt., et al. delivered seizin of properties in Lincolnshire to Margaret, widow of Thos. Skipwith, which they had of the gift of Thos. Skipwith.  The Robert Lord Willoughby mentioned must be the 6th Lord Willoughby (ca. 1385-1452); he had one child, a daughter, Joan, who married Richard de Welles. The title Lord Willoughby passed to the Welles family.

There were other Willoughbys in Lincolnshire who appear to be related to the lords Willoughby, and an a2a abstract dated June 3, 1417 shows Thos. son of William Willughby kt. and John Willughby son of Thos., et al. granting various advowsons in Lincolnshire to Thomas Skipwith esq. and Margaret his wife.

The Thos. Willughby mentioned in this latter abstract could be the younger brother of Robert 6th Lord Willoughby (and thus a son of William the 5th lord), but the chronology seems very tight.  This is still the period when marriages were contracted early.  Douglas Richardson’s Plantagenet Ancestry doesn’t mention an earlier marriage for William’s son Thomas.

Unfortunately, in his Magna Carta Ancestry pp. 886-888, Richardson contributes errors of his own, terming Robert 4th Lord Willoughby as the 3rd (the 2nd and 3rd were actually Johns).  According to CP 12 pt. 2 “Willoughby” and its associated chart, this individual was clearly the 4th.  Whether he was ever married to Alice, a daughter of Sir William de Skipwith, is moot.  Richardson shows that his son, William Willoughby the 5th lord, was issue of Margery la Zouche.  He then makes Thomas Skipwith’s wife a granddaughter of William 5th Lord Willoughby–but lists only William’s daughter Elizabeth who married Henry Beaumont as having a daughter named Margaret.  Perhaps Richardson meant to say Sir Thomas Skipwith’s wife was a granddaughter of Robert 4th Lord Willoughby, which is more plausible. 

According to CP, Robert 4th Lord Willoughby had a son John, of whom I know little (Bryan, b. ca. 1383, seems to have been the youngest son).  Robert’s son John never held the title, but was living Feb. 3, 1407 as shown by a grant with his brother William.  Obviously there’s confusion in the account of the Willoughby family.  I don’t know who Margaret Skipwith’s parents were, so I’m not going to fog it up further. 

This pedigree chart, adapted from Lincolnshire Pedigrees pp. 894-895, ties into the chart above.  Note that it claims Sir Thomas Skipwith’s wife Margaret to be a daughter of William 5th Lord Willoughby:

*****

It’s been alleged that Margaret Cave, wife of Sir William Skipwith (d. 1610), was connected to Cardinal Henry Beaufort.  Ignoring the dubious authenticity of any Henry Beaufort descent, the claim arose through confusion concerning members of the Danvers family and has no merit.

The UK National Archives has recently updated and improved its website.  a2a can now be accessed at this link:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a