Defragging the Plowdens

Начала Частный профиль сегодня
Возникла проблема на этой странице?

Участники:

  • Частный профиль
    Geni Pro

Упомянутые профили:

Показаны все сообщения (3)

I'm very much afraid that this is one time Darrell Walcott has taken a pratfall and come up with egg on his face. It had to happen sometime, I guess, especially with the utter UNreliability of the Visitations of Shropshire.

We have solid dates for the Sir Edmund Plowden whose daughter married Sir Richard White of Hutton, courtesy of Wikipedia and (the more reliable) History of Parliament Online. His dates are 1519/20 to 1584/5.. Wiki and HoP agree that his father was one Humphrey Plowden who married Elizabeth Stury, daughter of John Stury of Rossall and widow of one William Wollaston/Wollascott. It can be seen from this that the dates given in Wiki for Humphrey Plowden *are probably correct* (1490–1557), and that it is *impossible* for him to have been involved in a street brawl in 1462. (It is also quite impossible for Elizabeth Stury to have been connected with this affray in any way, as her dates are roughly comparable to Humphrey Plowden's; she died in 1559.)
Humphrey Plowden of Plowden
Elizabeth Plowden

Continuing to work backward, it is seen that John Stury was also misdated due to invalid assumptions made by Darrell Walcott; he was most likely born after the 1462 street fight, or at most have been a small boy about that time. John Stury of the Isle of Rossall

As for Anne Corbet...don't even *think* of using the Visitations of Shropshire to sort *her* out! They're an utter bollix where the Corbets are concerned. Anne Stury

In sum, we now have a very nasty tangle to sort out, due to the horrifically bad ASS-umption by Walcott that the William Walcot who was set upon by Roger and Edward Plowden in the streets of Walcot in 1462 "was the same person as" the William Wollascott or Wollaston who was the first husband of Elizabeth Stury. Plainly, this is an absolute impossibility.

Eyton is not much help here. Volume 11 mentions a few early Plowdens, but does not pursue the family line past 1342.

Показаны все сообщения (3)

Зарегистрируйтесь или войдите в систему чтобы участвовать в этом обсуждении