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 Collectionsfor 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
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 marriedWilliam 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
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.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.
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
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 hiswife 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 theirchildren, 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.time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
…..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
(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.
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
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 centuryBy 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
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 centuryBy 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 thingThe Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:
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
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 ...
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 centuryBy 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 thingThe Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:
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
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 ...
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 uponinformation 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…..Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
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
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.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
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
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 uponinformation 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…..Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
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
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.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
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
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote: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 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
Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.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
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)
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 haveThe 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
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.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote: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)
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
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"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],
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 onThere 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
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.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
wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
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
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote: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)
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
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"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],
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
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 centuryI 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
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote: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)
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
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"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],
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.
My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th centuryI 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
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
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote: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)
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
, 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/"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]
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
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 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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
The statement was Payne's, and all Hyde did was disprove that margaret 1558 was the wife of william montague ..... About which all agree(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.
My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th centuryI 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
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 connectionRight, 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.
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote: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)
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
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"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],
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
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(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.
My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th centuryI 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
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
It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connectionRight, 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.
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote: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)
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
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"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],
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
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(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.
My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th centuryI 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
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
On Saturday, Februarysee 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
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'tIt just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connectionRight, 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.
Jeff Duvallthe 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
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote: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)
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
, 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/"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]
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 WilliamThere 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
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.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
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 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
children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the followingIn 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
at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)….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
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(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.htmlI 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.
(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.
William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.
My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th centuryI 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
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 connectionthe 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
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35: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.
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
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 following3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:
inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VIIpresence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.
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
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 explainthe will of 1558.
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:following 3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:
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
presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.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
the will of 1558.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
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
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 ofBynfield, 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
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 uson 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
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 wecould 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
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 thevery 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.
I don't know if this helps or not...
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
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
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 stoppedthere 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.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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.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
Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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..... 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.
Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
There was no John born in 1510
This is a made up statement.
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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.
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.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.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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.
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.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.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
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.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.
'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medievalI 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.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.
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) (
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
There was no John born in 1510if 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.
This is a made up statement.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.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
from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
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 husbandStop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"There was no John born in 1510if 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.
This is a made up statement.
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
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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
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.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
from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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
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.Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"There was no John born in 1510if 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.
This is a made up statement.
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 itok 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
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
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 allSad 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
but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.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,
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.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
but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.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,
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.Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"There was no John born in 1510if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility.......
This is a made up statement.
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.
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 itok 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
That would also allow relaxing the extremely tight chronology
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 64:15:45 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,274,793 |