VP3. 1613 Standish of Duxbury Family A

CSOS, Vol. 82, 1871, p. 70


1613 Family A

HM’s PIN Nos



(d. >1326)









Sir Rowland[5A2]



Sir Christopher[6A1]









By 1613 the Visitations had become a standard procedure every generation. This VP is rather unusual in that it was not presented by the current incumbent, Alexander[10A1], son & heir of  Thomas[9A1] at the bottom (above). Alexander[10A1] was born in 1567 (shortly after the 1567 VP) and was still very much alive in 1613 and with several sons. However, since 1604 he had been a widower and often visited London. It might be that he was just not in Duxbury when Herald St George was visiting Lancashire. In any case, as an old established family, there was no need to prove anything, and this seems to have just been added to the series of Pedigrees for the record. There is no way, of course, that we can enter the mind of St. George when he drew this up, or know his reasons for bothering, but he seems to have made a genuine fresh attempt (rather successful) to take the family back to its founder Hugh[1A1], on the way including documents which proved the place of Sir Rowland[5A2] in the family, and many more documented details about him. He also provided a widow, Alice, for James[5A3] – she was Alice daughter of William Bradshagh of Haigh. He then, however, presented a bit of a muddle. He gave only one wife of Sir Christopher[6A1], who was not the mother of his son & heir and in fact was an amalgam of wives 1 and 3; Sir Christopher married 1) Elizabeth, daughter of William Bradshagh of Haigh & 3) Alice, dau. of Sir Alexander Standish of Standish. There never were any Standishes of Haigh. Nor did he did repeat the correct wife 2) Alice née Poole of Poole, the mother of son & heir Thomas[7A1], who had appeared on the 1567 VP. Maybe he just went down to Thomas[9Al], meaning to check up on his son & heir later, but never got round to it? We will never know.                HM 2013

Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved.