• Margaret (Malthouse ) Montague as daughter of John Malthouse and Margar

    From Bob N@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 22 11:32:45 2022
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections
    for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims
    that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a
    royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been
    read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married
    William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on
    27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The
    Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife
    Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children,
    estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the
    time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
    (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Tue Feb 22 13:14:24 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections
    for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married
    William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on
    27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from
    The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his
    wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the
    time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
    (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.

    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Will Johnson on Tue Feb 22 13:19:01 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:

    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century


    By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634

    However in that item which is online

    https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous

    we see a curious thing
    No evidence for who is speaking
    No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Tue Feb 22 13:37:26 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:

    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634

    However in that item which is online

    https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous

    we see a curious thing
    No evidence for who is speaking
    No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald

    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse

    There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)

    However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Tue Feb 22 18:29:16 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:37:29 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:

    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634

    However in that item which is online

    https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous

    we see a curious thing
    No evidence for who is speaking
    No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald
    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse

    There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)

    However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

    Not just Edward I, but she is equally well descended (9 generations in each case) from Richard of England, /HR Emperor/ 1256

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elizabeth A@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Tue Feb 22 20:18:14 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:37:29 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:

    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634

    However in that item which is online

    https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous

    we see a curious thing
    No evidence for who is speaking
    No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald
    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse

    There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)

    However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

    I'm not sure about any potential problem with royal lines through Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse's father Thomas Bullock. However, it seems to me that an alternate line exists through Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse's mother, Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock. The
    Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, as you indicated, states that Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock was "da. to John Kingsmill, one of the Justices of the Com'on Place[sic; Common Pleas], in co. South'ton, Esq."

    The Victoria County History of Berkshire for Barkham gives a few additional details:
    "The Kingsmill family appears frequently in records of Barkham. John Kingsmill (de Kyngesmalle) was resident in the parish in 1327, (fn. 8) and the names of John Kingsmill and Adam his son and Elizabeth wife of Adam occur in 1337. (fn. 9) Thomas
    Kingsmill and Richard his brother, living in 1476, are called sons of William Kingsmill of Barkham, deceased. (fn. 10) Richard Kingsmill of Barkham was father of John Kingsmill, justice of the Common Pleas, who died in 1504 and whose daughter Alice
    married Thomas Bullock of Arborfield. (fn. 11) His son Sir John Kingsmill was of Sydmonton, Hants, and was the ancestor of Elizabeth Brice (see manor), whose husband Robert Brice took the name and arms of Kingsmill in 1766 and was created a baronet in
    1800. (fn 12)
    ...
    8. Subs. R. printed in Berks. Bucks. and Oxon. Arch. Journ. v, 80.
    9. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xv, App. x, 173.
    10. Ibid.
    11. Ibid.; Betham, Baronetage of Engl. iv, 409; Visit. of Berks. (Harl. Soc.), i, 19. William Kingsmill appears as trustee in a settlement of Arborfield and Barkham Manors in 1585.
    12. Betham, loc. cit." https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol3/pp238-241

    I distinctly remember this branch of the Kingsmill family being given a brief footnote, giving an additional, more distant royal descent, in Paul Reed's excellent article "The Royal Descent of the Bernard, Corderoy, and Ironmonger Families of Virginia
    through the Seymour Family," The American Genealogist, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jul. 1998):181-192; Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct. 1998):294-311. Unfortunately I don't have access to my physical copy of this article, so I can't provide the specifics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 06:36:23 2022
    When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon information
    supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”


    When trying to establish a timeline…..

    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
    In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then Margaret
    would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
    From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
    …… Daughter Malthouse
    …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George

    There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
    From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
    John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
    John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
    2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
    3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)


    The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.

    When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this person
    would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have been
    27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JBrand@21:1/5 to Bob N on Wed Feb 23 10:19:36 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon
    information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”


    When trying to establish a timeline…..

    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
    In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then
    Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
    From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
    …… Daughter Malthouse
    …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George

    There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
    From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
    John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
    John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
    2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
    3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)


    The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.

    When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this
    person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have
    been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

    I think it is Myrtle Hyde's position that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 is specifically identical to the daughter of John Malthouse and wife Margaret Bullock. There's not much elaboration in her article on why she is 100% sure of that.
    Accepting it as true, however, means that the Margaret Malthouse ancestral to these immigrants (who first married in 1552) cannot be the daughter of Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse and thus lacks the RD.

    I wonder if it is possible that it was Margaret Bullock who married (1) John Malthouse; (2) 1552 Thomas Grove; (3) 1560 William Mountague?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Feb 24 11:47:08 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon
    information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”


    When trying to establish a timeline…..

    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
    In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then
    Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
    From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
    …… Daughter Malthouse
    …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George

    There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
    From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
    John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
    John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
    2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
    3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)


    The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.

    When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this
    person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have
    been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

    You again say that Margaret was born "About 1510"
    Why not "About 1520" or "About 1530" or "About 1500"

    You are giving a too specific date to something about which we know almost nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 13:58:01 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon
    information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”


    When trying to establish a timeline…..

    The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
    In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then
    Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
    From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
    …… Daughter Malthouse
    …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George

    There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
    From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
    John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
    John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
    2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
    3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)


    The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.

    When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this
    person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have
    been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.
    You again say that Margaret was born "About 1510"
    Why not "About 1520" or "About 1530" or "About 1500"

    You are giving a too specific date to something about which we know almost nothing.

    reasons for giving Margaret a birth year that is close to 1510:

    1) the listing for the sons for Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill in both the Visitations are done in order of age, as explained in the visitation. Their daughters are listed in the same order in both Visitations, and if they were done as the sons were,
    then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest child.

    2) The 1557 will of Margaret's father, Thomas Bullock, mentions his son-in-law John Malthouse several times, including once as a co-overseer to the will. This would indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with
    the Bullock family. It is much more likely that Jon would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 by marrying an elder daughter, thus being about 45 at the time of Thomas Bullock's death in 1558, as opposed to marrying into the family at a
    later date, say 1550, and being much younger, in his 20's, at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

    3) There is a reference stating that the Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague in 1560 was the daughter of John Malthouse of Binfield. When studying the Malthouse line in Binfield, the first John that appears died in 19 Henry VII (Inquisition
    24 Henry VII), and is an unacceptable candidate as the father of the Margaret in question. In the same Inquisition, a second John Malthose is mentioned as the son of the deceased John, and this son was 18 at the time of the inquisition in 1509, giving
    him a birth year of 1491. In the will in 1558 of John (1491), he refers to his wife Anne and included among his children a John Malthouse, without any mention of a Margaret. The John Malthouse mentioned in the will as a son is estimated to have been born
    in 1510. The next John Malthouse (born abt 1530) is the one referred to by Payne in his book and the NEHGR. Among the children of John (1530) was the Margaret who was baptized in Binfield in 1558 and thought by Payne, in error, to be the wife of William
    Montague and daughter of Margaret Bullock . The John (1530) also had a son John who was baptized in 1551. So the only John Malthouse of Binfield eligible to be the father of the Margaret who married William is the one born in abt 1510, who is mentioned
    in the 1557 will of Thomas Bullock and who was married to Margaret Bullock. Their daughter, Margaret, married Thomas Grove and William Montague was born abt 1532, so her mother, Margaret Bullock, would have been born in the early 1510’s.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 14:17:15 2022
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections
    for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married
    William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on
    27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from
    The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his
    wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at
    the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
    (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century

    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Sat Feb 26 07:08:48 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions
    his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at
    the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558) (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's

    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JBrand@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 08:42:46 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions
    his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated
    at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558) (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection

    Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to JBrand on Sat Feb 26 14:40:48 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:42:48 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    , claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/
    9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills
    have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he
    mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown. ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated
    at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
    (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.
    The statement was Payne's, and all Hyde did was disprove that margaret 1558 was the wife of william montague ..... About which all agree

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 14:37:49 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions
    his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated
    at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558) (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    Ok .... Who was the Malthouse in Thomas Bullock's will without 1510 or 1491..... Very unlikely John 1530 as overseer of Thomas' will being 27 at the time and only being a member of the Bullock family for 7 years? John 1491 or John 1510 was married to
    Margaret Bullock and the other made the will in 1558 having a wife Anne.


    You need A john Malthouse 1510..... Either as 1) son of 1491 and husband of Margaret Bullock. Then the will of John Malthouse 1558 was for John 1491 with wife Anne or 2) 1491 had two wives with first giving him a son John 1510, with the first wife having
    died bef 1530, and then his second wife was Margaret Bullock who gave him the daughter Margaret, wife of William Montague. Son John 1510 had the will in 1558 with wife Anne.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jefferyduvall12@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 14:48:25 2022
    On Saturday, February
    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.

    While I agree that more documentation would be necessary to state with certainty that William Montague's wife, Margaret Malthouse, was indeed the daughter of the John Malthouse who was married to Margaret Bullock, in rereading Hyde's article, I can't see
    that she provides any documentation proving that the Margaret Malthouse baptized on 15 February 1558/9 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock, either. Reading it now, I'd say she assumes this to be fact, but I'm not sure why. I don't know how common it
    was to list the maiden name of the mother in the parish records of mid-16th century Tudor England, but short of that I'm not sure we can know that for certain. As this discussion demonstrates, I don't think we have enough concrete dates to prove the case,
    either way. Clearly the Margaret Malthouse, I presume we know was the daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield baptized in 1558/9 cannot be the Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield, who was first married in 1552 and second in
    1560, but I think more documentation is necessary to prove if either of them was the daughter of Margaret Bullock. That being said, I at least find it worth reconsidering whether or not some Hyde's views which have more or less been accepted as settled
    fact aren't in need of review. I do have one question on the new material on the Malthouse family that's been discussed earlier in this string of messages: Does the will of John Malthouse (d. ca. 1558) provide any information on the "married daughter?"
    I think I've remembered correctly that you stated that the will noted the existence of a married daughter.

    Jeff Duvall

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 15:35:48 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890],
    claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9
    has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have
    been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions
    his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
    ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated
    at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558) (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    the will of Thomas Bullock mentions a godson Thomas Malthouse and the children from the Baptismal records who could have been siblings of Margaret Malthouse 1558, supposed daughter of Margaret, are John (1551) and Richard (1552) both with father shown as
    John Malthouse, and William (1554), Gilbert (1556), (Margaret (1558)), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563) all with father Malthouse, so without a godson Thomas Malthouse born before the 1557 will, when looking among these siblings. very unlikely that the
    Margaret of 1558 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to jeffery...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 15:14:53 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February
    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.
    While I agree that more documentation would be necessary to state with certainty that William Montague's wife, Margaret Malthouse, was indeed the daughter of the John Malthouse who was married to Margaret Bullock, in rereading Hyde's article, I can't
    see that she provides any documentation proving that the Margaret Malthouse baptized on 15 February 1558/9 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock, either. Reading it now, I'd say she assumes this to be fact, but I'm not sure why. I don't know how common it
    was to list the maiden name of the mother in the parish records of mid-16th century Tudor England, but short of that I'm not sure we can know that for certain. As this discussion demonstrates, I don't think we have enough concrete dates to prove the case,
    either way. Clearly the Margaret Malthouse, I presume we know was the daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield baptized in 1558/9 cannot be the Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield, who was first married in 1552 and second in
    1560, but I think more documentation is necessary to prove if either of them was the daughter of Margaret Bullock. That being said, I at least find it worth reconsidering whether or not some Hyde's views which have more or less been accepted as settled
    fact aren't in need of review. I do have one question on the new material on the Malthouse family that's been discussed earlier in this string of messages: Does the will of John Malthouse (d. ca. 1558) provide any information on the "married daughter?" I
    think I've remembered correctly that you stated that the will noted the existence of a married daughter.

    Jeff Duvall
    the Payne book takes a baptismal record in Binfield from 1558 that says Margaret malthouse was the Daughter of John Malthouse without a wife mentioned and made the assumption that this margaret was the wife of William Montague. Hyde disproved that
    assumption and then seemed to move on since her investigation concerned the Montague family. She leaves Payne's second assumption alone that this Margaret was the daughter of Margaret Bullock and lets it stand since it ceased to be a concern for the
    Montague line.

    The 1558 will mentions a married daughter to Thomas Watlington. The will has a wife Anne, with Children John, Richard, Julian and daughter married (Watlington).

    So there is a John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (inquisition 24 Henry VII) and John Malthouse of Binfield (abt 1530) with a son John Malthouse of Binfield (1551) (Binfield baptismal records). To make sence of the will for Thomas Bullock in 1557 and
    the will for John Malthouse of Binfield in 1558, there should be a John Malthouse of Binfield born in 1510, son of 1491 and father of 1530. one or the other of John 1491 and John 1510 would have been married to Margaret Bullock and the other had the will
    of 1558 with wife Anne.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Sat Feb 26 18:16:42 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 3:35:49 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book
    Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

    "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    , claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/
    9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills
    have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."


    There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards
    married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William
    Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

    The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

    There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available
    from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

    In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he
    mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

    In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their
    children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
    ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
    …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
    ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown. ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

    The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated
    at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)


    (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
    (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
    (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
    (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
    (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
    (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
    (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
    (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
    I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

    William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
    we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
    and he was a great-grandfather.

    Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
    I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
    My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

    Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

    For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

    However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
    Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
    The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

    The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

    It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
    the will of Thomas Bullock mentions a godson Thomas Malthouse and the children from the Baptismal records who could have been siblings of Margaret Malthouse 1558, supposed daughter of Margaret, are John (1551) and Richard (1552) both with father shown
    as John Malthouse, and William (1554), Gilbert (1556), (Margaret (1558)), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563) all with father Malthouse, so without a godson Thomas Malthouse born before the 1557 will, when looking among these siblings. very unlikely that
    the Margaret of 1558 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock.

    Will you please stop stating as a fact that John Malthouse was born IN 1510
    We have exactly *zero* evidence of what year he was born

    Stating as if we have some fact that he was born IN 1510 or even NEAR 1510 is unsupported
    If your software cannot contemplate the idea that people can have birth RANGES than you need to discard that software for more modern software that can.

    You then use this unsupported claim of *exactly* 1510 to also claim his wife was born IN (or near) 1510
    We have examples from this time period of a husband marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jefferyduvall12@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 20:12:50 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:

    For what it's worth, Payne also mentions the burial of a Margaret Malthouse of Binfield recorded in the parish register as taking place on March 19 (I think it's the 19th, sorry sometimes I can't read my own handwriting) 1542. Of course there is no way
    to prove one way or the other, at least based on this alone, that this was Margaret Bullock Malthouse, but I would venture to say to that it is in the realm of possibility, at least or until we are firmer ground vis-a-vis the dates for all these people.
    I guess one question to ask is whether or not there are any other Margaret Malthouses who might "fit the bill" as it were, for the woman buried in March 1542?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to jeffery...@gmail.com on Sun Feb 27 03:28:19 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:12:51 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:

    For what it's worth, Payne also mentions the burial of a Margaret Malthouse of Binfield recorded in the parish register as taking place on March 19 (I think it's the 19th, sorry sometimes I can't read my own handwriting) 1542. Of course there is no way
    to prove one way or the other, at least based on this alone, that this was Margaret Bullock Malthouse, but I would venture to say to that it is in the realm of possibility, at least or until we are firmer ground vis-a-vis the dates for all these people.
    I guess one question to ask is whether or not there are any other Margaret Malthouses who might "fit the bill" as it were, for the woman buried in March 1542?

    The Margaret Malthouse buried in 1542 can be eliminated as possibly being Margaret Bullock since she was bequeathed a gold hoop in her father's will in 1557.......

    "..........Also, I give and bequeath to my daughter Malthouse one hoop of gold and to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold........... "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 1 09:52:56 2022
    You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the following 3
    documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:

    inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
    will Thomas Bullock 1557
    will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557

    using only
    John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
    John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
    ??????????
    John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
    John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

    First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.

    John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock. John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since:
    1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
    2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
    family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
    3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
    mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.

    That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his
    presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.

    As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain the
    will of 1558.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Tue Mar 1 13:10:06 2022
    On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the following
    3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:

    inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
    will Thomas Bullock 1557
    will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557

    using only
    John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
    John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
    ??????????
    John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
    John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

    First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.

    John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock.
    John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since: 1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
    2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
    family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
    3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
    mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.

    That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his
    presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.

    As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain
    the will of 1558.

    So your case rests upon assuming that three generations in a row had their heir while they were say 20 years old. And that doesn't seem like an enormous red flag to you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Tue Mar 1 14:09:34 2022
    On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the
    following 3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:

    inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
    will Thomas Bullock 1557
    will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557

    using only
    John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
    John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
    ??????????
    John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
    John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

    First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.

    John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock.
    John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since:
    1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
    2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
    family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
    3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
    mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.

    That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his
    presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.

    As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain
    the will of 1558.
    So your case rests upon assuming that three generations in a row had their heir while they were say 20 years old. And that doesn't seem like an enormous red flag to you?
    my case rests on the three documents that i have mentioned several times and you continually avoid

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jefferyduvall12@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 1 14:25:42 2022
    Perhaps another way to look at this is to focus on who the father of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague could be, assuming we all can agree that her son, William Montague, would have known that his mother was indeed the daughter of a John Malthouse of
    Bynfield, as was reported in the 1634 Visitation of Buckinghamshire. Some of the few concrete dates that I think everyone can agree upon are the dates of her two marriages, and the births of at least some of her children. We know that she married Thomas
    Grove in 1552 (2 July, if I am reading my notes correctly), that she gave birth to her only child (Anne) by Grove in 1554 and was widowed in 1558. We also know that she married
    her second husband, William Montague (b. ca. 1535'ish - d. 1594ish) on 27 May 1560. Finally, we also know that William and Margaret Malthouse Montague's seven children were baptized between 1560/1 and 1573. And that it was their second son, William (
    1562- aft. 1634), M.A. and fellow of King's College, Cambridge, who supplied the information for the 1634 Visitation.

    Turning to what little we know about the Malthouse family of Binfield (a.k.a. Bynfield) I think we can all agree that Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the daughter of the John Malthouse who died in 1504 (I'll call him John I). That moves us on
    to the next John Malthouse (John II) who died in 1558, who we know left behind a widow named Anne (and as was pointed out, and I apologize for mixing that up, we know that Margaret Bullock was married to a John Malthouse at the time her father wrote his
    will in 1557, so she can't have been married to John II, unless she died and he remarried Anne sometime between the time the two wills were recorded). It seems unlikely that he could be her father since the only children named in his will were his son
    and heir John (III), a second son name Roger, a daughter named Julian, and final and fourth child who is the unnamed daughter who was married to Thomas Watlington. So that next leaves the John I've referred to as John III, who it appears was the man
    married to Margaret Bullock. Clearly, Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the Margaret Malthouse who was baptized in 1558, but is she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1504) -- the known dates associated with her simply don't add up, even
    if she was born posthumously 1505, I don't believe she'd still be bearing children in 1573 -- and she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1558), unless you want to also start speculating about the reasons her father wouldn't mention her in his will,
    wouldn't her most likely father be John III?

    As was noted earlier in this string, if girls as young as 12 (although I'm not sure there were that many marriages of 12-year-old girls taking place in mid-16th century Tudor England, but that's another can of worms) could marry, then the latest we could
    place Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague's birth would be ca. 1540 (that would make her 14 at the time of Anne Grove's birth) and given her youngest known child, Peter Montague, was born ca. 1573, I don't think we can push her earliest birthdate much past
    the late 1520s, and I would think it is more likely to be sometime in the mid-1530s.

    I'm not sure where this leaves us, vis-a-vis the probable (or not) existence of a John Malthouse between John III (mentioned in the 1558 will of John II) and the John baptized in 1551, and I may be getting a bit lost in my own head here, but at the very
    least I think we have to consider the possibility, that John III and Margaret Bullock might be the parents of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague, if we accept William Montague's identification of his maternal grandfather as John Malthouse of Binfield. And
    that the father of the Malthouse children being baptized from 1551-1563 (including the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558, which started all this) might in fact be a John IV who was the brother and contemporary of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague.

    I don't know if this helps or not...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to jeffery...@gmail.com on Wed Mar 2 06:59:03 2022
    On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:25:44 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
    Perhaps another way to look at this is to focus on who the father of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague could be, assuming we all can agree that her son, William Montague, would have known that his mother was indeed the daughter of a John Malthouse of
    Bynfield, as was reported in the 1634 Visitation of Buckinghamshire. Some of the few concrete dates that I think everyone can agree upon are the dates of her two marriages, and the births of at least some of her children. We know that she married Thomas
    Grove in 1552 (2 July, if I am reading my notes correctly), that she gave birth to her only child (Anne) by Grove in 1554 and was widowed in 1558. We also know that she married
    her second husband, William Montague (b. ca. 1535'ish - d. 1594ish) on 27 May 1560. Finally, we also know that William and Margaret Malthouse Montague's seven children were baptized between 1560/1 and 1573. And that it was their second son, William (
    1562- aft. 1634), M.A. and fellow of King's College, Cambridge, who supplied the information for the 1634 Visitation.

    Turning to what little we know about the Malthouse family of Binfield (a.k.a. Bynfield) I think we can all agree that Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the daughter of the John Malthouse who died in 1504 (I'll call him John I). That moves us
    on to the next John Malthouse (John II) who died in 1558, who we know left behind a widow named Anne (and as was pointed out, and I apologize for mixing that up, we know that Margaret Bullock was married to a John Malthouse at the time her father wrote
    his will in 1557, so she can't have been married to John II, unless she died and he remarried Anne sometime between the time the two wills were recorded). It seems unlikely that he could be her father since the only children named in his will were his
    son and heir John (III), a second son name Roger, a daughter named Julian, and final and fourth child who is the unnamed daughter who was married to Thomas Watlington. So that next leaves the John I've referred to as John III, who it appears was the man
    married to Margaret Bullock. Clearly, Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the Margaret Malthouse who was baptized in 1558, but is she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1504) -- the known dates associated with her simply don't add up, even
    if she was born posthumously 1505, I don't believe she'd still be bearing children in 1573 -- and she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1558), unless you want to also start speculating about the reasons her father wouldn't mention her in his will,
    wouldn't her most likely father be John III?

    As was noted earlier in this string, if girls as young as 12 (although I'm not sure there were that many marriages of 12-year-old girls taking place in mid-16th century Tudor England, but that's another can of worms) could marry, then the latest we
    could place Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague's birth would be ca. 1540 (that would make her 14 at the time of Anne Grove's birth) and given her youngest known child, Peter Montague, was born ca. 1573, I don't think we can push her earliest birthdate
    much past the late 1520s, and I would think it is more likely to be sometime in the mid-1530s.

    I'm not sure where this leaves us, vis-a-vis the probable (or not) existence of a John Malthouse between John III (mentioned in the 1558 will of John II) and the John baptized in 1551, and I may be getting a bit lost in my own head here, but at the
    very least I think we have to consider the possibility, that John III and Margaret Bullock might be the parents of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague, if we accept William Montague's identification of his maternal grandfather as John Malthouse of Binfield.
    And that the father of the Malthouse children being baptized from 1551-1563 (including the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558, which started all this) might in fact be a John IV who was the brother and contemporary of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague.

    I don't know if this helps or not...


    We have John I (1504) who had a son, John II, born 1491/92. ( both from the inquisition 24 Henry VII)

    Then we have John III who was the father of John IV. John IV was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and was the brother of Margaret (1558). A reasonable estimate for a birth year for John III would be about 1530, looking at the succession of his children
    who were baptized in the 1550's and early 1560's.

    John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
    John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
    ?????????? (1510)
    John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
    John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

    The other 4 events that we have for the Johns of Binfield are:
    !) The will of 1558 and you have listed the names involved with that will
    2) The will of 1557 for Thomas Bullock that has various references to the Malthouse name
    3) The Visitation of Berkshire showing that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse
    4) The Visitation of Buckinghamshire showing William Montague married Margaret Malthouse daughter of John

    The 1558 will and the marriage to Margaret involve 2 different Johns, and as it stands now John II is assigned the will and John III was married to Margaret.

    Some issues concerning the marriage of Margaret Bullock to John III
    1) Margaret Bullock appears to be the oldest daughter for Thomas Bullock and Alice Kinsmill based upon the listing for their 10 children (5 boys, 5 girls) in the Visitation. If she was the eldest of their children she would have been born about 1510, and
    and more than likely was born in the 1910's. Based upon the succession of children assigned to John III, he was born in the late 1520’s or about 1530.

    2) In Thomas Bullock’s will, he names John Malthouse, his son-in-law, as a co-overseer of his will. John III would have been about 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock family for about 7 years, therefore being a
    very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will, especially since some of Thomas’ children would have been in their 40’s.

    3) In Thomas Bullock’s will, he bequeaths a gold bracelet to his godson Thomas Malthouse, and in list of children assigned to John III, we are unable to find a Thomas. We find John IV (1551), Richard (1552), William (1554), Gilbert (1556), Margaret (
    1558), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563)

    Thus what I am saying is that there was a John born about 1510, in the gap shown above. That would make either John (1491) or John (about 1510) the husband of Margaret and the other would have made the will in 1558. It is too big a stretch that John III
    was Margaret Bullock’s husband and a natural gap about 1510 that would make sense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 2 14:31:46 2022
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband? Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 07:38:51 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband? Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all

    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there
    and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 08:18:47 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.

    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Thu Mar 3 08:33:46 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the
    direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Thu Mar 3 08:38:53 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 08:44:55 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:33:49 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the
    direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

    Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 09:03:30 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.

    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 10:48:44 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions
    reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped
    there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the
    direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 11:13:22 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from
    the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.


    if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility....... besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jefferyduvall12@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 3 11:50:26 2022
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

    I think that was more or less what I was trying to suggest, in so far as I think it most likely that it is John III (who is mentioned in John II's 1558 will) who was married to Margaret Bullock (and that he is the one mentioned in Thomas Bullock's will
    which was written in 1557). That leaves us with a John Malthouse (with no wife listed) who was having children between ca. 1551 and 1563 (if I remember correctly) and a Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague who is having children between 1554 and 1573.
    This suggests (at least I think so) that those two might be contemporaries and probably siblings. I don't think she can be the unnamed daughter of John II, who was married to Thomas Watlington, since we know that Margaret Malthouse was married to Thomas
    Grove from 1552 until his death in 1558 -- and I'm pretty sure that when she married William Montague in 1560 she did so as the widow of Thomas Grove. That being the case, and for now I'll assume that to be so, I think we have to at least be open to the
    probability that she is therefore the daughter of John III, and that that also means that she might in fact be the daughter of Margaret Bullock after all. For this to be the case, however, clearly both John III and Margaret Bullock would, of necessity,
    have to be among their respective parents' older children, although I don't that we gain anything by speculating on exact dates, I think there is a range of birth years that would apply and still be plausible. And while I don't think anything we
    currently do know (vis-a-vis dates) precludes that (i.e. Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague being the daughter of John III and Margaret Bullock, even with the Margaret born in 1558) from being possible, it does imply the existence of a John IV who would
    be Margaret's brother and the father of the children being baptized between 1551 and 1563. Another possibility might be that John III was married more than once, and Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague was the child of an earlier marriage, and the children
    being baptized between 1551 and 1563 are indeed the children of John III, but by a subsequent wife (i.e. Margaret Bullock). I know that would mean that John III named two daughters Margaret, but that is not as unusual as one might think (particularly
    when it comes to half siblings -- going slightly off course, I'm descended from two half-brothers both of whom were named Mareen Duvall). I think Payne has some discussion of the Watlington family so I'll try to track that down when I am home this
    evening, but I don't know if it will provide any answers or not.

    At this point I think there are any number of ways we can reconstruct this family, but each reconstruction requires us to fill in the many gaps in the family's history with "possible, probable, likely" (etc.) scenarios to support each theory we come up
    with. Even so, I think the discussion is worth having -- up to now I simply accepted Hyde's position as fact and never really even bothered to consider any other possible interpretation of what fragments of evidence are available; so even if we wind up
    back where we started (and we may very well do so), I think it's been a worth while exercise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Thu Mar 3 11:17:49 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more
    likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.


    'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval

    11:45 AM (2 hours ago)

    to
    Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.

    'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval

    12:03 PM (2 hours ago)

    to
    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

    Bob N <bobn050021@gmail.com>

    12:23 PM (1 hour ago)

    to soc.genealogy.medieval
    Being the oldest daughter is based on the two visitations to Berkshire. The sons are listed by age and the daughter's are listed in the same order in both visitations, so as meticulous as the author was,they should be by age as well.

    It is far more likely that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse born in 1491 than Jon Malthouse born about 1530. As it was pointed out, it was more common that a much older man married a younger woman as would have been the case with John (1491) ( he
    would have been about her father's age), but for an older woman to marry a younger man, this was rarely seen, as would have been the case with John (1530). Also John was of some stature in 1557 to be co-overseer of Thomas Bullock's will.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 11:19:12 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:17:51 PM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and
    more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.
    'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval

    11:45 AM (2 hours ago)

    to
    Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.
    'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval

    12:03 PM (2 hours ago)

    to
    I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.
    Bob N <bobn0...@gmail.com>

    12:23 PM (1 hour ago)

    to soc.genealogy.medieval
    Being the oldest daughter is based on the two visitations to Berkshire. The sons are listed by age and the daughter's are listed in the same order in both visitations, so as meticulous as the author was,they should be by age as well.

    It is far more likely that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse born in 1491 than Jon Malthouse born about 1530. As it was pointed out, it was more common that a much older man married a younger woman as would have been the case with John (1491) (
    he would have been about her father's age), but for an older woman to marry a younger man, this was rarely seen, as would have been the case with John (1530). Also John was of some stature in 1557 to be co-overseer of Thomas Bullock's will.
    i will reread the Grove will....thank you

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Thu Mar 3 11:56:39 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and
    more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from
    the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.
    if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility....... besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.

    Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
    If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520

    You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob N@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Thu Mar 3 14:31:32 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and
    more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but
    from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.
    if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility....... besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
    Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
    If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520

    You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
    ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband
    marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to Bob N on Fri Mar 4 06:11:24 2022
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but
    stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple
    and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but
    from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.
    if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility....... besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
    Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
    If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520

    You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
    ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband
    marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.

    That would also allow relaxing the extremely tight chronology

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Fri Mar 4 06:40:05 2022
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 9:11:26 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

    What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
    Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
    She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

    You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
    Repeating is not evidence.

    Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
    Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty
    conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

    Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues,
    but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

    What we do have:
    1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
    3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
    4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
    5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
    6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
    7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
    8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
    9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

    It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
    Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple
    and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

    John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

    Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
    The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have,
    but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
    There was no John born in 1510
    This is a made up statement.
    if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility.......
    besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
    Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
    If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520

    You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
    ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband
    marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.
    That would also allow relaxing the extremely tight chronology

    Katherine Neville married John Woodville, about a 40- or 50-year age difference (1400s).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)