Hugh WILLOUGHBY - Unlikely Parentage from Dates

Started by Craig Andrew Miles on Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 11 posts

This profile has date of birth recorded as 1380 and some of the attached matches, for what they are worth have 1393.

Hugh's mother Isabelle Isabel Willoughby however has date of birth recorded as c1383 which are just about consistent with the dates of birth of her own parents.

I'm afraid I dont have the knowledge of how to decipher the family tree pictured in the attached link in the Overview to Thoroton's Nottinghamshire https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-teYO3hFqE0C&newbks=0&... to determine what the documented dates should be.

However, it is clear that something is wrong and the the parentage, at least of Hugh's mother is highly suspicious.

Does anyone have the knowledge to resolve this?

Hugh Willoughby is your 12th cousin 11 times removed.
Isabel Willoughby is your 13th cousin 10 times removed

Private User or Erica Howton

is this something that either of you two ladies are willing and able to attempt to unravel.

There has been no progress in over a month unfortunately.

This looks like a straightforward biography from a reliable source:

University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections. < link >

Biography of Sir Hugh Willoughby (c.1380-1448)

Hugh was the son of Edmund Willoughby and Isabel Annesley, and great-grandson of Sir Richard Willoughby . By his second marriage to Margaret Freville he acquired the valuable manor of Middleton and other estates in Warwickshire, making him one of the wealthiest members of the Midlands gentry. Middleton was to become one of the family's principal residences. Hugh was knighted at the coronation of Henry VI in 1429 and held local offices appropriate to his status.

Sir Hugh and his first wife were buried in the church at Willoughby-in-the-Wolds under a tomb chest with elegant alabaster effigies.

If the lines are holding, according to the old genealogies, but aren’t working because of birth dates, the birth dates need to be taken out. They were not recorded at this time, and would have been later guesses anyway.

Somehow I missed your responses to this Erica Howton and Private User

What you say all makes sense but it still LOOKS to me like there is something amiss.

We have:
Sir Hugh Willoughby (1380)

Parents:
Sir Edmund de Willoughby, II (1357)
Isabel Willoughby (?, Geni's guess 1375)

Grandparents:
Edmund de Willoughby (1340)
Uncertain (?, Geni 1301-1357)
Sir Hugh Annesley of Annesley (?, 1360-1370)
Benedicta Annesley (?, 1350-1370)

Great Grandparents (via Hugh De Annesley):
Thomas Annesley of Annesley, MP (1341)
Agnes de Annesley (?, 1355)

It's Agnes De Annesley's part in this that raises a red flag to me.
If she was really born in 1355 and Hugh Willoughby was really born in 1380 (he cant have been born much later as he supposedly married his first wife Isabel in 1395 although seemingly didnt have a child until 1417) then we are trying to squeeze 3 generations into 25 years which seems impossible (Hugh's birth in 1380 to Agnes, his GGM in 1355).

Agnes herself has parents born in 1333/35 and grandparents born in 1314/17/11/15 all of which seem not inconsistent with her birth in 1355 (around 40 year gap to all grandparents).

If the genealogy from Agnes De Annesley to Hugh Willoughby is correct (3 generations via Hugh De Annesley and Isabel Willoughby (Annesley))
then if you agree that 25 years for 3 generations is too short then it can only be the case that one of the following must be true:

- Agnes De Annesley's DOB is wrong (looks likely to be correctish as it stands)
- Hugh Willoughby's DOB is incorrect (seems possible but you seem to gave confidence in the link you cited Erica )
- The genealogy is wrong (you both seem confident it is correct)

So I am still left flummoxed. What do you both think?

Craig Andrew Miles - you have to look into each of the profiles to inspect for sources. Obviously starting with Agnes de Annesley

Craig Andrew Miles — our line in Geni follows the genealogies; that’s not the problem.

As far as I can tell, the dates aren’t a problem either. In your message right above, you give dates that supposedly are in Geni. But we do not have Hugh Willoughby born in 1380. We have circa 1380. We do not have Edmund at 1357. We have circa 1357.

When Isabel was first put into Geni, in 2008, she was given no birth date at all, which,as far as I am concerned, is the right one. In 2011 she was given a birthdate, which was c.1378. In 2020 I took the birth date out (probably because the guess was causing trouble, and we don’’t know what the date was anyway). THAT SAME DAY someone else put the birth date in as c. 1383. In June of this year, Erica took the birth date out again, bless her heart. Geni is now doing the best it can, bless its heart too, to estimate what her birthdate is, but it’s having trouble, on account of all the guesses on all her near relatives.

Agnes was not born in 1355; we have circa 1355. She originally had no birthdate at all; the c. 1355 got put in in 2011.

All of the “circa” dates can go 5 years one way or the other, but they were all estimates to begin with.

None of these dates are real. They are all guesses. They are mostly guesses that have a 10 year possible span.

I wish to high heaven that unless we have actual evidence, or failing that, a well thought out guess based not on how long people might be alive before they had children, but on histories, land grants, wills, court documents, letters, and the like, that we put NO birthdates into English profiles before 1358, which is when Cromwell managed to get Henry VIII to order all the churches in England to keep parish registers and write down births and deaths and marriages, because that is when we start having solid and regular evidence as to when people got born, and before that we do not.

I consider the genealogies with citations — Stirnet is using the Vistations — to be reliable, or at least fairly reliable. I consider the birthdates on all these profiles to be fantasies. So I sorta can’t get really concerned when they don’t match up.

However!

Perhaps we can find church court documents, and legal documents, and letters, and wills, and the like — household accounts would work, too, and so would churchwardens’ accounts — and get some actual real birthdates! And that would be wonderful. But it is not likely to happen.

I am so very sorry that I cannot be of more help in making this apparently untidy piece of the Tree more tidy.

Unless of course I were to be allowed to take all the birthdates out. As you see, Erica and I tried that with Isabel already. But users really want some dates. So they keep getting put back in.

Craig Andrew Miles - I can set Agnes de Annesley to “after 1361” because we have a marriage date for her (current) parents of Sir Robert Clifton and Lady Agnes (de Grey) Clifton as 1361.

All we have so far for evidence is that her father was Robert Clifton, of Clifton.

Not sure if that equals Sir Robert Clifton but his locations are Clifton Hall, Clifton, Nottinghamshire & I don’t see any with similar names nearby.

OK, Stirnet moves Agnes de Clinton up 2 generations. Which I like.

https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/cc4aq/clifton02.php#link2

  • (A) Sir Robert de Clifton of Clifton (b c1308, d 1327) m. Emma de Moton (dau of Sir William de Moton)
    • (i) Sir Gervase de Clifton of Clifton, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire (a 1347) m1. Margaret Pierrepont (dau of Sir Robert de Pierrepont of Holm Pierrepont)
      • (a) Sir Robert de Clifton (dvp) m1. Isabella m2. Agnes Grey (dau of ?? Grey, Lord of Wilton)
        • ((1)) Sir John de Clifton of Clifton, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire (d Shrewsbury 1403)
    • (ii) Agnes Clifton probably of this generation m. Thomas Annesley of Annesley (a 1384, 1413)

Thanks for all of the analysis and detailed responses on this Private User and Erica Howton

I definitely take your point Anne about the vagaries of birth dates but it always makes me question the accuracy of a tree as it stands if there are too many generations wedged into a short time period and the related relationships and dates look like they don't have much leeway to move.

Having said that, if I am understanding correctly, it looks like you did actually shift around the position of Agnes de Annesley in the tree Erica which seemingly pushed her date of birth back to 30 years earlier.

From what I can see, the dates all seem to line up better now.

So looks like a good job, well done - some more excellent detective work. Thanks!

Showing all 11 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion