STANDISH OF DUXBURY

4. VISITATION PEDIGREES

4.10. Dugdale’s Hunt Through VPs

Helen Moorwood 2013

This perhaps belongs more appropriately in the MYLES STANDISH folder, but it also sits comfortably alongside all the Visitation Pedigrees. To be able to follow the argumentation that follows it is advisable, perhaps essential, to have copies at your side of the Standish of Duxbury Family A VPs 4. VP2. 1567, 4. VP3. 1613 and 4. VP4. 1664/5. It will also be useful to have Family Trees 1 & 2 of Family A close at hand. We will remember that these Family Trees have been compiled after close scrutiny of the Standish of Duxbury Muniments (in Lancashire Archives).

We will take as our starting point the VP of Standish of Duxbury 1664/5 by Sir William Dugdale, in the belief that he had received a request from Alexander Standish, son of Myles Standish, Pilgrim Father, to help him to find his ancestry. Alexander wished to try and confirm what his father knew and had reported from family tradition, but could not himself prove. This proof would be necessary if he was to have any success in reclaiming his father’s lands, owned by right of inheritance. Captain Myles’s relevant statement in his Will had been:

9 I give unto my son & heire aparent Allexander Standish all my lands as heire apparent by lawfull Decent in Ormistick Borsconge Wrightington Maudsley Newburrow Crawston and the Ile of man and given to me as right heire by lawful Decent but Surruptuously Detained from mee my great G(ran)dfather being a 2cond or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish

We know from Myles’s friend Nathaniel Morton (New England’s Memorial, 1669) that Myles had said that he had been born in Lancashire and was the son of a soldier. We know that he named his own settlement in c.1630 Duxbury. One might assume from these facts alone that he actually was born in Lancashire, in a family that had a military tradition, and that he was somehow rather directly connected with the current Standishes of Duxbury, but with a strong blood link through his great-grandfather to the Standishes of Standish, who had something to do with the lands of which he had been “surruptuously” deprived, presumably during the recent Civil Wars. We might also assume that his son Alexander passed on all this information to Sir William Dugdale in the 1660s. So, as already mentioned, the only thing we do not know, but is being proposed here, is that Sir William Dugdale, on his two Visitations of Lancashire in 1664 and 1665, had in his travelling bags notes to be able to undertake this intriguing additional detective hunt. We may assume that Dugdale also had in his bags the VPs Standish of Duxbury of 1567 and 1613 produced by his predecessors.

Whether this supposition is historically true or not, it provides a useful path through the Visitation Pedigrees of Family A in an attempt to understand some of the anomalies encountered.

For whatever reason, Dugdale did not attempt to contact the current Standishes of Duxbury. We know that a visit to Duxbury Hall would have found thirteen-year-old orphan Richard[12B1] as the son and heir and Lord of the Manor in waiting.  Dugdale would presumably have been informed by Alexander of Massachusetts that this Richard and his father Colonel Richard (recently deceased) were from a different family, which had taken over Duxbury Hall in the middle of the Civil Wars. In this case, as Dugdale could have reasoned, no one at Duxbury Hall at this time would have any family memories about so many generations earlier in a different family. Dugdale himself had been a Royalist throughout the Civil Wars and had recently gained preferment under Charles II. We know from other sources (see his biography in the DNB, Old and New) that he was interested in recording family members who had fought on the Royalist side. Parliamentarian Family B at Duxbury Hall did not fall into this category, so here was another reason for not visiting: he might well not expect to find a sympathetic ear.

This is a great pity, because if he had visited, he would have found the Standish of Duxbury Muniments, exactly the same (up to 1664/5) as those which any visitor to Lancashire Archives today can peruse. With his well-recorded historical and genealogical diligence, he would have no doubt found those relevant to Sir Christopher[6A1], which well over three centuries later revealed their secrets to another inquisitive person interested in Myles Standish’s ancestry. However, Dugdale was a very busy man, with several hundred other families on his list for Visitation Pedigrees.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 9

Let us begin where Dugdale either started of stopped, with this Generation 9 at the bottom, Thomas[9A1], which was the generation of Myles’s father or grandfather. Dugdale knew that Myles had been born in the 1580s, because his son Alexander knew his own father’s story and at least the approximate birth-date. It does not matter in the current context whether he was born in 1584 or 1587 (that is another debate for another place and time).

With Myles’s birth in the 1580s and Dugdale’s knowledge that (along with all other heralds and anyone concerned with genealogy) one can reckon about 30 years per generation, particularly if younger sons are involved, then he would have known before he started that to find Myles’s great-grandfather, he would be looking for someone one or two generations before Thomas[9A1]. Simple arithmetic tells us – and Dugdale - what he knew from the VPs of his predecessors Richard St George in 1613 and William Flower in 1567.

Visitation of Lancashire, 1567, in the College of arms, is in sir William Dugdale’s handwriting “Visitation of Lancashire, by Dalton, Norroy anno 1567. . .”

archive.org/stream/.../remainshistorica81chetuoft_djvu.txt

So we know that Dugdale had all the information from the 1567 VP, because he had copied it out for himself. The “Dalton, Norroy” in the reference immediately above is curious, because Norroy at that time was definitely William Flower, and it was his Visitation which was published under his name by the Chetham Society from the copy in the Harleian MSS at the British Library.

Thomas[9A1]had presented the VP in 1567 in person, and so his details about his immediate ancestors were reliable. In 1567 he had only four daughters and no sons. (We actually know from Chorley Parish Registers that they had had three (or four) sons by that time, but all of them had died as babies or infants between 1561 and 1566.) We can take it for granted that Thomas[9A1] knew exactly who his wife was, and also his siblings, parents and grandparents. He had already had a practice run at recording some of these in a surviving document - DP397/15/2, described by the Cataloguer in 1965 as “Genealogical notes on Standish family of Duxbury, 28 Edw. I – 18 Hen VIII.”

His wifewas “Margaret, dau. of Sir Richard Howghton of Howghton, co. Lancaster, knt”.  In 1613 Norroy St George had not even bothered to copy Thomas’s wife, but it is surprising that Dugdale decided, in 1664, that Thomas’s wife had been someone else: “Margaret, dau. and coheir of Thomas Houghton of Pendleton”. With hindsight we know that this was as a result of the awful muddles created by two Thomas Standishes of Duxbury marrying two Margaret Hoghtons, with widower Thomas(2) later marrying widow Margaret(1), but this has now been sorted out. (See the Standish of Duxbury Muniments 2I. 1550-1577: the Period of Muddles; 2 Thomases, 2 Christophers, 2 Margaret Hoghtons and 2J. DP397, 1577-1619: Thomas[9D1] and Alexander[10A1] Restore Order.) We can be grateful to Dugdale for providing the information on the father of Margaret(2) as Thomas Hoghton of Pendleton, because this informed us of the identity of Margaret(2) herself. In this case we might even surmise that Dugdale obtained this information when researching the Hoghton pedigree.

His younger brotherwas Christopher. Thomas himself said that he was the “2 sonne”, and Dugdale accepted this and reproduced him faithfully. I called him Christopher[9A3]. What Thomas didn’t record in 1567 was that he had had another younger brother Richard[9A2], but he had died before 1565, so sadly did not warrant a place on a Visitation Pedigree, because he had produced no son and heir. Christopher was recorded on the 1567 VP presumably because he was still alive and thus there was still a possibility that he might produce a son and heir who would claim the same coat of arms at the next Visitation. The Standish of Duxbury Muniments record that he lived in Chorley, survived until at least 1583, but does not appear as married or with any children.

His sister Annewas “maryed to Randolphe Eton, co. Lancaster, gent.” His sister Clemence was “maryed to John Yate of Chorley, gent.” Dugdale duly copied these in 1664/5, with just a few changes in spelling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 8

Thomas[9A1]’s fatheron the 1567 VP was “James Standishe of Duxbery, ar., sonne and heire” and his mother was “Elizabeth, dau. of John Butler of Rauclyf, co. Lancaster, ar.” Dugdale accepted and copied these faithfully.

Thomas’s three auntson the 1567 VP were “Alice maryed to Barnes of Waltham foreste, co. Middlesex, gent.”; “Elizabeth, first maryed to Rowland Edwardes of London, merchant; second to … Fulwer  [corrected by a later editor to Fuller] of London, merchant; and third to Thomas Moore of London, merchant.”; and “Jane, maryed to William Newman als Scroope, who had yssue four daughters and heyres.” For reasons known only to himself, Dugdale in 1664/5 copied only Elizabeth and Alice (in the wrong order) and their husbands, but omitted Jane.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 7

Thomas’s grandfatheron the 1567 VP was unequivocally “Thomas Standishe of Duxbery, ar., sonne and heire” (now named Thomas[7A1]) and his grandmother was “Catherine, dau. of Sir Alexander Standishe of Standishe, co. Lancaster, knt”. Thomas[9A1] was presumably keen to include the last bit of information, because Sir Alexander was the first (or last, depending on which direction one is moving) knight in the family from whom he claimed direct descent. Dugdale accepted this information and repeated both grandparents, with the predictable few changes of spelling.

He was presumably delighted to find a Standish of Duxbury-Standish of Standish marriage, because this was very close to what he had been looking for on behalf of Alexander of Duxbury, Massachusetts: namesake Sir Alexander Standish of Standish had provided a daughter Katherine as a bride for a Standish of Duxbury in more or less the same generation as Myles’s great-grandfather. But there was no trace of “a 2cond or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish”.If a younger brother of Thomas[7A1] had appeared here, married to another daughter of Sir Alexander Standish of Standish, he would immediately have been a candidate for the “2cond or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish”. But he just wasn’t there in Thomas[9A1]’s family memory.

In any case, in 1567 Thomas was only concerned with proving his own armigerous ancestry. He was not required to provide the information for any contemporary ‘cousins’ of junior branches from previous “2cond or younger” brothers – if they wanted to prove their own armigerous ancestry, they should present their own Visitation Pedigrees. In 1567 the only other Standish family to do this was Standish of Standish – the original Senior branch. A brief glance at this (see below) reveals only the record “other children” of Sir Alexander. The only two considered worth mentioning in 1567 were Ralph, the son and heir who had continued the line, and the very same “Katherin maryed to Thomas Standish of Duxbury, ar.” who appears on the Standish of Duxbury VP.

 

Dugdales Hunt

 

Unfortunately, neither Thomas[9A1] in Duxbury, nor his ‘cousin’ Edward over in Standish, had provided the information that we now know from the Standish of Duxbury Muniments: that Sir Christopher[6A1] of Duxbury had lost his (second) wife Alice née Poole, mother of Thomas[7A1] and his three sisters, and had married again in 1490, this time to Sir Alexander Standish’s eldest daughter Alice, who bore him two more sons, Alexander in 1491 and Rowland in 1492/3. We know this because of Sir Christopher’s settlement, which almost served as his Will, in 1593 (DP397/21/3) and because Baines, the historian of Lancashire in the 1840s, recorded the marriage of Sir Christopher with Alice Standish of Standish.

 Maybe the two Standish families in 1567 were rather confused about these earlier generations, because of so many Standish of Standish/ Standish of Duxbury/ Bradshagh of Haigh marriages. Edward Standish in Standish in 1567 had a sister Jane married to “Roger Bradshaw of Hawe”, and in previous generations, the equivalent to Standish of Duxbury Generations 6 & 7, three Bradshaws of Haigh had married three different Standishes of Duxbury! For the record:

(A)Thomas[7A1]’s sister Maud/Matilda Standish married William Bradshagh of Haigh. (B) Sir Christopher[6A1] married 1) in 1468 Elizabeth Bradshagh of Haigh, who died osp.  This marriage was despite Sir Christopher’s mother having herself been (C) Alice, a daughter of William Bradshagh of Haigh, married to James[5A3].

Two ofThomas[9A1]’s great-aunts in Generation 7 were identified and recorded by Flower in 1567 as “Mawde, maryed to William Bradshawe of Hawe, co. Lancaster, ar.” and “Anne, maryed to . . Shakerley co. Lancaster, gent.” St George had not bothered to record these in 1613, but in 1664/5 Dugdale, again for reasons known only to himself, added another one: “Margaret married Ralph Holden.” This may (or may not) have been because he had already had a good look at previous Holden pedigrees, knew that Ralph Holden had been the Lord of the Manor of Holden, and so thought it worth recording. For some reason he changed “Mawde” to “Matilda”, “Bradshawe” to “Bradshagh” and “Hawe” to “Haighe”.

Dugdale never knew that Sir Christopher and Alice née Poole had had three other sons after Thomas[7A1]: James[7A2], Hugh[7A3] and Christopher[7A4], but they are all there in the Standish of Duxbury Muniments, along with another daughter Elizabeth who presumably died young. (All these bewildering ‘extras’ are presented as clearly as possible at the bottom of FT1 and the top of FT2.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 6

By now we are back in the time of Sir Christopher Standish of Duxbury[6A1] and Sir Alexander Standish of Standish, comrades in arms, knighted together at Hutton Field in 1482 during the campaign against the Scots at Berwick. They were in the army under Richard, Duke of Gloucester, knighted by Thomas, 2nd Baron Stanley, who three years later was to turn on his former comrade at the last minute, supporting his stepson Henry Tudor to victory at Bosworth against Gloucester, now Richard III.

Four generations back from Thomas[9A1] in 1567, information understandably starts to become rather more vague all round. We know this today with our own family memories of what we have heard of previous generations. How many of us can confidently give details of our great-grandparents? Unless we have done a lot of research, of course. (Sir) William Dugdale knew this problem in 1664/5 and we can presume that he presumed that Thomas[9A1] also had the same problem in 1567. So anything reported earlier than Generation 6 could always, in theory, be suspect.

Thomas[9A1] was absolutely certain about his great-grandfather being Sir Christopher, married to “Alice, dau. of William Poole of Poole, co. Chester” and Dugdale accepted this and reproduced it. It was very sensible of him to ignore what St George had reported in 1613: that Sir Christopher’s one and only wife was someone different. As we now know, “Elizabeth, filia Willelmi Standishe de Haghe” doesn’t make sense – there never were any Standishes of Haigh near Wigan, even though the two families married so often. The Standish males never went to live in Haigh and the Bradshaghs/ Bradshaws never went to live in Standish or Duxbury, except to visit their various relatives by marriage. This imaginary Elizabeth was presumably an amalgam of Elizabeth, daughter of William Bradshagh of Haigh (1st wife) and Alice, daughter of Sir Alexander Standish of Standish (3rd wife), neither of whom was the mother of son and heir Thomas[7A1]. Interestingly, neither of the heralds in 1567 or 1613 awarded Sir Christopher with any siblings. Only the faint trace of one, Hugh[6A2], was left fleetingly in the Standish of Duxbury Muniments. There almost inevitably had to be a Hugh in many generations because of their founding father Hugh[1A1] and all the other Sir Hughs who had fought at Agincourt, etc..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 5

In 1567 Thomas[9A1] stopped going back at James[5A3]. Presumably Norroy William Flower was quite satisfied by this stage that this family indeed qualified on all counts for the right to bear their Standish coat of arms. Richard St George in 1613, having had most of the spade work already done for him by his predecessor, and despite not having the pleasure of meeting the current incumbent Lord of the Manor, Alexander[10A1], decided to take the family back four more generations to Hugh, the founder of the line.

For Generation 5 Flower located a document naming James[5A3], which conveniently mentioned his widow Alice in 1 R. 3 (1483/4), and, even more splendidly for later historians, found the very specific document about James’s brother Sir Rowland bringing back to Duxbury a relic of St Laurence from France, which led to the Parish Church being named after this saint. (See MISCELLANEOUS 8.5. St Laurence.)

Dugdale in 1664/5 accepted and repeated this, although for some indeterminate reason omitted Sir Rowland’s name, despite apparently having located and read his “Will dated 1435”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generation 4

Flower in 1613 also located a document naming Christopher[4A1], very conveniently naming him as “filius Hugonis Standish, 19 R. 2.” (1395/6). Very helpfully, he added below the VP the part of the text of this, which also gave his wife as “Margaretæ uxori ejus Thome Fleming militis, de eodem comitat, anno 19 R. 2.” Margaret wife of Sir Thomas Fleming of the same county – we know from other sources that he was Lord of the Manor of Croston, one of the manors where Myles had inherited some land.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generations 3, 2, 1

The last-named document made it very easy for Flower in 1613 to add Hugh[3A1] as “Hugo de Standishe, filius Ricardi, 20 E. 3” (1347/8) and in the same or a different document of the same year, could identify Richard[2A2] as the son of Hugh[1A1], the founder of the line. The story seemed complete for all heraldic purposes. So much so that one wonders why Dugdale even bothered to just repeat those of 1567 and 1613 – with his own little changes, but not bringing it up to date and the top, and down to the current generation. It seems that there must have been some ulterior motive behind his search other than the conventional ones for a Visitation Pedigree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dugdale’s problems with Generation 4

In 1567 Thomas[9A1] had stopped at James[5A3] in his journey back through his ancestors; in 1613 Flower had gone back to the first generation with Hugh[1A1]; but now in 1664/5 Dugdale stopped at Christopher[4A1]. Why stop with him? Why not stop in an earlier generation or go back to the founder of the family? Had he found what he was looking for? Or had he just given up his search for some specific piece of information? Whatever the reason, he introduced a completely unexpected and virtually impossible ancestry for Christopher[4A1]. He called him “Christopher Standish of Duxbury, second son of . . . Standish of Standish.” How on earth, given the documentation and dates provided by his predecessor Flower, could he even begin to think that he was anything other than the son of Richard[2A2], son of Hugh[1A1], both Standishes of Duxbury?

One answer to this today could be to dismiss him as hopeless in this case, just making a huge mistake. And yet his reputation among his peers was as one of the most thorough of historians, with his Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656) highly praised as a model of a county history. He also worked closely with the highly respected Lancashire historians Christopher Towneley of Towneley, Roger Dodsworth, married to a Hesketh of Rufford and Richard Kuerden. The reason he did not consult any of these, or ask them to follow up his detective hunt for early Standishes of Duxbury, can be explained to a certain extent by Dodsworth having died in 1654, although Towneley lived until 1674 and Kuerden until about 1690. Maybe they were too busy with their own historical researches? They certainly left enough volumes full of notes, some of which still await transcription. In any case, both were surrounded by families who had had lands sequestrated during and after the Civil Wars. None of them were likely to be very sympathetic to the idea of causing yet more troubles, particularly with Males and Alexander having emigrated permanently to America.

Another answer could be that Dugdale had discovered another document which revealed (as was indeed the case) that Hugh[3A1] had married in 1369 Alice, the daughter of Henry Standish of Standish, Lord of the Manor of Standish. So this did indeed make Christopher[4A1] a son of a Standish of Standish mother, but as far as is known he never had any older brothers and so there is no justification for calling him a “second son of . . . Standish of Standish”. Nor did Dugdale (or Edward Standish of Standish, who presented his family’s VP at Ormskirk on 22 September 1664) make any attempt to take the Standish of Standish line back far enough to include this generation. (See 4. VP8. 1664 Standish of Standish a.)

Another answer could be that he had abandoned his search and just never had time or reason to return and correct the obviously wrong information about Christopher[4A1]. But why even suggest that Christopher was a “second son of . . . Standish of Standish” in the first place?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bringing the Standishes of Burgh into the picture

One explanation could be where I started at the beginning – he was trying to find the “2cond or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish” whom Myles claimed as his great-grandfather. Another piece of evidence in support of this explanation is what Dugdale did with the VP of Standish of Burgh. (See 4. VP6. 1613 Standish of Burgh in Duxbury and 4. VP7. 1664 Standish of Burgh in Duxbury.)Burgh was a section of Duxbury to the west of the River Yarrow, which had been taken over by Standish of Standish, starting with Edward Standish of Standish’s purchase of Duxbury (Old) Hall and demesne in the south of Duxbury in 1524 from Thomas Duxbury of Duxbury. This was at the time when the Standishes of Duxbury were living at The Pele in the north of the township, with their sphere of ownership and influence almost entirely in the north, centre and east of the township. Some time after 1524, which saw this acquisition of a Standish of Standish toehold in Duxbury, Thurstan Standish moved to Burgh and founded a junior branch of Standish of Standish. There is no doubt about his origins, because his coat of arms was that of Standish of Standish, and his 2x great-grandson Thurstan, who presented the 1613 VP in person, gave his ancestor as “Thurstan Standish, a yonger brother of Standish of Standish”. By 1664 this line had apparently died out, or was on the point of dying out in the male line, but in any case Dugdale included them in his VPs by repeating the 1613 VP.

Relevant comments about anomalies are made in the box below the 1664 VP. The most intriguing change by Dugdale was in turning Thurston Standish at the top from “a younger brother of Standish of Standish” to “second son of Sir Alexander Standish”. One clue for this mistake (as I am claiming it is) lies in the names of this family. With Thurston-Laurence-Thurston-Laurence-Thurston-Laurence it is obvious that they followed the time-honoured tradition of naming the first son after his paternal grandfather. In this case one might expect the father of Thurston at the top to have been Laurence. And lo and behold, on the pedigree chart drawn by Eleanor Johnson (History of the Standish Family, 1972), based on the Standish of Standish papers transcribed by the Revd T. C. Porteus (A Calendar of the Standish Deeds, 1230-1575, 1933), there is a son Laurence in a series of Standish of Standish sons born to an earlier Alexander, the one at the top of 4. VP8. 1664 Standish of Standish a.

According to this VP this Alexander was married to “Eustathia” and died in 23 Henry VI (1445), but according to Eleanor Johnson’s chart he was married to Constance Gerard, the mother of his sons: Ralph, Brian, Thomas, Oliver, Laurence, Robert, Roger, Peter, Hugh. It could well be that he had two wives, but this hardly matters in the current context. This Laurence would qualify admirably to have been the father of “Thurstan Standish, a yonger brother of Standish of Standish” at the top of the Burgh 1613 VP. He would have been a younger son of this Alexander and not of the latter’s grandson Sir Alexander. In the box below the Burgh 1613 VP it was calculated that Thurstan at the top might have been born c.1478 (if 25 years per generation is calculated) or c.1453 (if 30 years). In turn this would give his father a birth date of between 1453 (1478 minus 25) and 1423 (1453 minus 30). We know that Sir Alexander died in 1504 and that his eldest daughter Alice married in 1490, aged presumably at least 14 and probably somewhat older. This gives her a probable birth in the 1470s and her father Sir Alexander a probable birth in the 1440s or 1450s (Eleanor Johnson wrote 1445 under his name). In turn this would give his father Ralph a birth in the 1420s or 1430s and his father Alexander (married to Eustathia and/or Constance) a birth in the late 1300s or very early 1400s. As we know that this Alexander died in 1445, these calculations would seem reasonable. Although speculative, this calculation would give Alexander’s fifth son Laurence (out of nine) a birth about 30+ years after his father. This brings us to about 1430, give or take however many years one wishes. Putting these in a table might make this a little clearer? Only dates are included which appear documented on the VPS. The histories and family papers of Standish of Standish provide, of course, many more dates.

1613/1664 VPs Standish of Burgh

Approx dates of birth

30 per gen/

25 per gen

Approx dates of birth

1613/1664 VPs Standish of Standish

 

 

1390s-1400s

Alexander d. 1445, m. Eustathia/ Constance

Laurence, 5th son of Alexander on the right

1423-1453

1420s-1430s

Ralph, eldest son

Thurston

1453-1478

1440s-1450s (?1445)

Sir Alexander, d.1504

Laurence

1483-1503

 

Ralph, d. 1525/6

Thurston

1513-1528

 

Alexander, d. 1532/3

Laurence

1543 -1553

 

Edward

Thurston

1573-1578  

 

Alexander, eldest son in 1567

Laurence, aged 10 years in 1613, so born 1603.

1603

 

Ralph, d. 1656

If my thesis about Dugdale’s hunt for Myles’s great-grandfather is correct, then Dugdale might even have known from Myles’s son Alexander that the relevant Standish being hunted for was indeed a younger son of Sir Alexander. In this case he just happened to leap to a hasty (and erroneous) conclusion and hit the wrong Alexander.

This hand-drawn chart is reproduced on the website mylesstandish.info under Section 5. The Mayhew Family of England & The Mason Family of Ireland 1898 to 2008, entitled ‘The Family Tree of the Standish Family of the Manor of Standish – the Lancashire branches’. On this the webmaster and author of the accompanying articles, Tony Christopher, has added Thurstan by hand as a son of Sir Alexander married to Sybil Bold, presumably believing that Dugdale was correct in 1664. Tony Christopher’s belief that Dugdale was correct and that Eleanor Johnson had erroneously just omitted Thurstan, has led him to propose that Thurstan of the Burgh in Duxbury (at the top of his own VP) was the great-grandfather of Myles mentioned in his Will. I fear that in this case Tony Christopher has jumped to a wrong conclusion. Other arguments against this identification include Myles’s naming of his own sons. If he really was from the Burgh family, with all of these Thurstans and Laurences, one might have expected one of Myles’s sons to bear one of these names. They didn’t – they were named Alexander, Myles, Josia(h), Charles(x2).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This argument will be taken up again, juxtaposed with other evidence, in the folder MYLES STANDISH.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved.