Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I descentthrough Lionel Welles.
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
I think the line from Lionel Welles is quite weak. As a starter, note that the biography given for John Lawrence, supposed son of John Lawrence and Eleanor Welles according to the pedigree, says that John was the "[son] of Sir James Lawrence, 5thSquire of Ashton and Cecily Lawrence" - quite a different couple. That should be a big red flag for you....
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
I think the line from Lionel Welles is quite weak. As a starter, note that the biography given for John Lawrence, supposed son of John Lawrence and Eleanor Welles according to the pedigree, says that John was the "[son] of Sir James Lawrence, 5thSquire of Ashton and Cecily Lawrence" - quite a different couple. That should be a big red flag for you....
I have not investigated this family in any depth, but it looks as if one thing that may be wrong currently on WikiTree is the statement in the biography of John Lawrence, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922, that John's mother had the first nameCecily.
WikiTree relationship connections, including the pedigree chart at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912, show John as son of James (not John) Lawrence and Eleanor Welles. James as father accords with what is stated in thebiography for John Lawrence. Eleanor does not: she is described on WikiTree as James's second wife. James's first wife is said in the biography to be Cecily, last name at birth Boteler.
But Douglas Richardson in his ''Royal Ancestry'' says that John Lawrence's mother was Eleanor Welles, not Cecily: see ''Royal Ancestry'', Vol. III, pp. 308-309. If that is right, it means that John's biography has identified the wrong mother for him,and that the mother-son relationship shown in the WikiTree pedigree chart is correct.
On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 06:14:40 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
Squire of Ashton and Cecily Lawrence" - quite a different couple. That should be a big red flag for you....I think the line from Lionel Welles is quite weak. As a starter, note that the biography given for John Lawrence, supposed son of John Lawrence and Eleanor Welles according to the pedigree, says that John was the "[son] of Sir James Lawrence, 5th
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 2:59:23 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:name Cecily.
I have not investigated this family in any depth, but it looks as if one thing that may be wrong currently on WikiTree is the statement in the biography of John Lawrence, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922, that John's mother had the first
biography for John Lawrence. Eleanor does not: she is described on WikiTree as James's second wife. James's first wife is said in the biography to be Cecily, last name at birth Boteler.WikiTree relationship connections, including the pedigree chart at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912, show John as son of James (not John) Lawrence and Eleanor Welles. James as father accords with what is stated in the
and that the mother-son relationship shown in the WikiTree pedigree chart is correct.But Douglas Richardson in his ''Royal Ancestry'' says that John Lawrence's mother was Eleanor Welles, not Cecily: see ''Royal Ancestry'', Vol. III, pp. 308-309. If that is right, it means that John's biography has identified the wrong mother for him,
descent through Lionel Welles.On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 06:14:40 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
Squire of Ashton and Cecily Lawrence" - quite a different couple. That should be a big red flag for you....I think the line from Lionel Welles is quite weak. As a starter, note that the biography given for John Lawrence, supposed son of John Lawrence and Eleanor Welles according to the pedigree, says that John was the "[son] of Sir James Lawrence, 5th
Are there any dates associated with this James Lawrence, and/or Eleanor's next husband Hugh Hastings?
"According to Marlyn Lewis," ?
Why are sources like this cited
This is just some individuals private tree
It should not be cited at all
Private trees are not reliable sources, no matter who has created them
OR you could stop citing private trees which have not been vetted
https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA3-PA310&dq=%22eleanor+welles%22+thomas+lord+hoo&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij0_XIi_PzAhUzJzQIHR9sBYIQ6AF6BAgNEAI#v=onepage&q=%22eleanor%20welles%22%20thomas%20lord%20hoo&f=true
Here is a published source stating that Eleanor Welles had a son named John apparently the second (as so named) son by her marriage with James Lawrence of Ashton Lancs
However
an article in the Gentleman's Magazine, written 400 years later, is not going to pass muster as a reliable source for the next link
That is, that John Lawrence, second son, is the same person as John Lawrence of Ramsey Hunts
So go fish.
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.
I have now found an entry, viewable on Google Books, for Eleanor Welles which covers her husbands too, in Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry - Vol. IV, pp. 310-311, WELLES 10, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8JcbV309c5UC&q=welles#v=snippet&q=welles&f=false - you need to scroll down the search results quite a way to get to the relevant page. It says nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I descentthrough Lionel Welles.
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:IPMs for Sir James Lawrence were published in 'Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem made by Christopher Towneley and Roger Dodsworth' Volume 2 (Chetham Society 99 (1876)).
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.The original source for these dates would be the inquisitions post mortem taken after the death of Robert Lawrence of Ashton Court, Lancashire, and of his son Sir James Lawrence. I've not seen an abstract of the 1450 IPM for Robert Lawrence, but two
The first, taken 20 August 1490, states "et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence miles obit ultimo die mensis Maii ultimo preterite et quod Thomas Laurence est filius et heres ejus propinquior et etatis 24 annorum et amplius."amplius."
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n147/mode/2up
The second, taken 19 April 1501, states "Et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence obit ultimo die mensis Maii Anne regain Regis predicti quinto. Et quod Thomas Laurence Armigeri est filius et heres ejus propinquior et est etatis quadraginta annorum et
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n155/mode/2upPresumably he overlooked the 1490 IPM on pages 122-123.
Douglas Richardson in his 'Magna Carta Ancestry' 2nd Edition, cites this 1876 Chetham Society volume amongst his list of sources for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, but only the pages (131-133) for the 1501 IPM above.
snippet&q=welles&f=false - you need to scroll down the search results quite a way to get to the relevant page. It says nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings.I have now found an entry, viewable on Google Books, for Eleanor Welles which covers her husbands too, in Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry - Vol. IV, pp. 310-311, WELLES 10, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8JcbV309c5UC&q=welles#v=
Not only does Douglas say nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings, he states (p. 310), of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, "They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, and Robert (clerk), and two daughters, Agnes (wife of William Tunstall) and Jane."
I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.a detailed pedigree of the Lawrence family of Ashton Court, and provides supporting evidences. The only two children the pedigree assigns to Sir James Lawrence and his second wife Eleanor (Welles), Lady Hoo, are sons Thomas and John.
John Gough Nichols, in 'The Herald and Genealogist' Volume 8 (1874), includes an article 'Lawrence of Ashton, Co. Lancaster', pp. 210-219. The article, which is not amongst the sources listed by Douglas on p. 310 of his 'Magna Carta Ancestry', includes
The article does abstract the IPM for John Laurence of Ashton Court, the younger son of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, who was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field 9 Sept 1513 ("fuit quod predictus Johannes Laurence obit nono die Sept. 5 Hen.VIII."):
https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis08nich/page/216/mode/2upother of his father's deceased sisters.
From John Lawrence's IPM, it's clear he died without issue (though he did leave a widow, Alice), as his heirs were one aunt, Margaret (Lawrence) Rigmaden (d. 12 Aug. 1517), sister of his father Sir James, and three first cousins, the heirs of three
Per the entry on Ashton in VCH Lancaster Volume 8 (1914), more details are given about the descendants of four aunts of John Lawrence. After his death, "the inheritance was divided among a number of families, representatives of his aunts Elizabeth,Margaret, Agnes and Alice, daughters of Robert Lawrence. Footnote: This appears from pleadings of 1536 in Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 163, m. 20, concerning the manors of Ashton, Camforth and Scotforth, and extensive lands, &c. (1) Elizabeth married John
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp50-56if they had actually existed, would have to have predeceased without issue their brother John Lawrence of Ashton Court.
As this volume of VCH Lancaster is amongst the sources Douglas cites for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, I find it interesting that he proceeds to give Sir James and Lady Eleanor Lawrence three additional children, who,
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
I've no idea from whom William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont, descends, but it certainly wasn't from John Lawrence of Ashton Court (dsp 1513), son of Sir James Lawrence of Ashton Court (c.1428-1490) and his wife Eleanor (Welles) Lady Hoo.This WikiTree entry for John Lawrence is incorrect.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922South Kelsey (1501-1522), with a daughter Elizabeth Hansard (1522-1558), the first wife of Sir Francis Ayscough of Stallingborough Hall (by 1518-1564), brother of Protestant martyr Anne Ayscough (burned at the stake 1546).
The WikiTree pedigree Paulo links above has additional Edward I descents for this William Lawrence, through a purported maternal ancestor, Anne (Tyrwhitt) Kaye:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Tirwhitt-1
Yet, this also is almost certainly incorrect. I have Anne Tyrwhitt, the daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt of Kettleby Hall (c.1482-1548) and Maud Tailboys (descended from Edward I through each of her parents), as married 4 Dec 1516, to William Hansard of
Cheers, -----Brad
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas RichardsonThe original source for these dates would be the inquisitions post mortem taken after the death
says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not
looked for other sources for these dates.
of Robert Lawrence of Ashton Court, Lancashire, and of his son Sir James Lawrence. I've not
seen an abstract of the 1450 IPM for Robert Lawrence, but two IPMs for Sir James Lawrence
were published in 'Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem made by Christopher Towneley and
Roger Dodsworth' Volume 2 (Chetham Society 99 (1876)).
Thanks, Brad, for the helpful information. As far as WikiTree goes, I will be giving this conversation longer to see if additional well-sourced information is produced, and then, as I have time from other priorities, be adding info, and making changes,to what is on WikiTree.
On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 07:13:00 UTC, Brad Verity wrote:IPMs for Sir James Lawrence were published in 'Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem made by Christopher Towneley and Roger Dodsworth' Volume 2 (Chetham Society 99 (1876)).
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.The original source for these dates would be the inquisitions post mortem taken after the death of Robert Lawrence of Ashton Court, Lancashire, and of his son Sir James Lawrence. I've not seen an abstract of the 1450 IPM for Robert Lawrence, but two
amplius."The first, taken 20 August 1490, states "et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence miles obit ultimo die mensis Maii ultimo preterite et quod Thomas Laurence est filius et heres ejus propinquior et etatis 24 annorum et amplius."
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n147/mode/2up
The second, taken 19 April 1501, states "Et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence obit ultimo die mensis Maii Anne regain Regis predicti quinto. Et quod Thomas Laurence Armigeri est filius et heres ejus propinquior et est etatis quadraginta annorum et
Presumably he overlooked the 1490 IPM on pages 122-123.https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n155/mode/2up
Douglas Richardson in his 'Magna Carta Ancestry' 2nd Edition, cites this 1876 Chetham Society volume amongst his list of sources for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, but only the pages (131-133) for the 1501 IPM above.
snippet&q=welles&f=false - you need to scroll down the search results quite a way to get to the relevant page. It says nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings.I have now found an entry, viewable on Google Books, for Eleanor Welles which covers her husbands too, in Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry - Vol. IV, pp. 310-311, WELLES 10, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8JcbV309c5UC&q=welles#v=
Jane."Not only does Douglas say nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings, he states (p. 310), of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, "They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, and Robert (clerk), and two daughters, Agnes (wife of William Tunstall) and
includes a detailed pedigree of the Lawrence family of Ashton Court, and provides supporting evidences. The only two children the pedigree assigns to Sir James Lawrence and his second wife Eleanor (Welles), Lady Hoo, are sons Thomas and John.I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.
John Gough Nichols, in 'The Herald and Genealogist' Volume 8 (1874), includes an article 'Lawrence of Ashton, Co. Lancaster', pp. 210-219. The article, which is not amongst the sources listed by Douglas on p. 310 of his 'Magna Carta Ancestry',
VIII."):The article does abstract the IPM for John Laurence of Ashton Court, the younger son of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, who was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field 9 Sept 1513 ("fuit quod predictus Johannes Laurence obit nono die Sept. 5 Hen.
other of his father's deceased sisters.https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis08nich/page/216/mode/2up
From John Lawrence's IPM, it's clear he died without issue (though he did leave a widow, Alice), as his heirs were one aunt, Margaret (Lawrence) Rigmaden (d. 12 Aug. 1517), sister of his father Sir James, and three first cousins, the heirs of three
Margaret, Agnes and Alice, daughters of Robert Lawrence. Footnote: This appears from pleadings of 1536 in Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 163, m. 20, concerning the manors of Ashton, Camforth and Scotforth, and extensive lands, &c. (1) Elizabeth married JohnPer the entry on Ashton in VCH Lancaster Volume 8 (1914), more details are given about the descendants of four aunts of John Lawrence. After his death, "the inheritance was divided among a number of families, representatives of his aunts Elizabeth,
if they had actually existed, would have to have predeceased without issue their brother John Lawrence of Ashton Court.https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp50-56
As this volume of VCH Lancaster is amongst the sources Douglas cites for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, I find it interesting that he proceeds to give Sir James and Lady Eleanor Lawrence three additional children, who,
This WikiTree entry for John Lawrence is incorrect.I've no idea from whom William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont, descends, but it certainly wasn't from John Lawrence of Ashton Court (dsp 1513), son of Sir James Lawrence of Ashton Court (c.1428-1490) and his wife Eleanor (Welles) Lady Hoo.
of South Kelsey (1501-1522), with a daughter Elizabeth Hansard (1522-1558), the first wife of Sir Francis Ayscough of Stallingborough Hall (by 1518-1564), brother of Protestant martyr Anne Ayscough (burned at the stake 1546).https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922
The WikiTree pedigree Paulo links above has additional Edward I descents for this William Lawrence, through a purported maternal ancestor, Anne (Tyrwhitt) Kaye:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Tirwhitt-1
Yet, this also is almost certainly incorrect. I have Anne Tyrwhitt, the daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt of Kettleby Hall (c.1482-1548) and Maud Tailboys (descended from Edward I through each of her parents), as married 4 Dec 1516, to William Hansard
Cheers, -----Brad
I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:IPMs for Sir James Lawrence were published in 'Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem made by Christopher Towneley and Roger Dodsworth' Volume 2 (Chetham Society 99 (1876)).
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.The original source for these dates would be the inquisitions post mortem taken after the death of Robert Lawrence of Ashton Court, Lancashire, and of his son Sir James Lawrence. I've not seen an abstract of the 1450 IPM for Robert Lawrence, but two
The first, taken 20 August 1490, states "et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence miles obit ultimo die mensis Maii ultimo preterite et quod Thomas Laurence est filius et heres ejus propinquior et etatis 24 annorum et amplius."amplius."
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n147/mode/2up
The second, taken 19 April 1501, states "Et quod predictus Jacobus Laurence obit ultimo die mensis Maii Anne regain Regis predicti quinto. Et quod Thomas Laurence Armigeri est filius et heres ejus propinquior et est etatis quadraginta annorum et
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n155/mode/2upPresumably he overlooked the 1490 IPM on pages 122-123.
Douglas Richardson in his 'Magna Carta Ancestry' 2nd Edition, cites this 1876 Chetham Society volume amongst his list of sources for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, but only the pages (131-133) for the 1501 IPM above.
snippet&q=welles&f=false - you need to scroll down the search results quite a way to get to the relevant page. It says nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings.I have now found an entry, viewable on Google Books, for Eleanor Welles which covers her husbands too, in Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry - Vol. IV, pp. 310-311, WELLES 10, https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8JcbV309c5UC&q=welles#v=
Not only does Douglas say nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings, he states (p. 310), of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, "They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, and Robert (clerk), and two daughters, Agnes (wife of William Tunstall) and Jane."
I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.a detailed pedigree of the Lawrence family of Ashton Court, and provides supporting evidences. The only two children the pedigree assigns to Sir James Lawrence and his second wife Eleanor (Welles), Lady Hoo, are sons Thomas and John.
John Gough Nichols, in 'The Herald and Genealogist' Volume 8 (1874), includes an article 'Lawrence of Ashton, Co. Lancaster', pp. 210-219. The article, which is not amongst the sources listed by Douglas on p. 310 of his 'Magna Carta Ancestry', includes
The article does abstract the IPM for John Laurence of Ashton Court, the younger son of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, who was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field 9 Sept 1513 ("fuit quod predictus Johannes Laurence obit nono die Sept. 5 Hen.VIII."):
https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis08nich/page/216/mode/2upother of his father's deceased sisters.
From John Lawrence's IPM, it's clear he died without issue (though he did leave a widow, Alice), as his heirs were one aunt, Margaret (Lawrence) Rigmaden (d. 12 Aug. 1517), sister of his father Sir James, and three first cousins, the heirs of three
Per the entry on Ashton in VCH Lancaster Volume 8 (1914), more details are given about the descendants of four aunts of John Lawrence. After his death, "the inheritance was divided among a number of families, representatives of his aunts Elizabeth,Margaret, Agnes and Alice, daughters of Robert Lawrence. Footnote: This appears from pleadings of 1536 in Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 163, m. 20, concerning the manors of Ashton, Camforth and Scotforth, and extensive lands, &c. (1) Elizabeth married John
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp50-56if they had actually existed, would have to have predeceased without issue their brother John Lawrence of Ashton Court.
As this volume of VCH Lancaster is amongst the sources Douglas cites for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, I find it interesting that he proceeds to give Sir James and Lady Eleanor Lawrence three additional children, who,
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
I've no idea from whom William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont, descends, but it certainly wasn't from John Lawrence of Ashton Court (dsp 1513), son of Sir James Lawrence of Ashton Court (c.1428-1490) and his wife Eleanor (Welles) Lady Hoo.This WikiTree entry for John Lawrence is incorrect.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922South Kelsey (1501-1522), with a daughter Elizabeth Hansard (1522-1558), the first wife of Sir Francis Ayscough of Stallingborough Hall (by 1518-1564), brother of Protestant martyr Anne Ayscough (burned at the stake 1546).
The WikiTree pedigree Paulo links above has additional Edward I descents for this William Lawrence, through a purported maternal ancestor, Anne (Tyrwhitt) Kaye:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Tirwhitt-1
Yet, this also is almost certainly incorrect. I have Anne Tyrwhitt, the daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt of Kettleby Hall (c.1482-1548) and Maud Tailboys (descended from Edward I through each of her parents), as married 4 Dec 1516, to William Hansard of
Cheers, -----Brad
That Isabel was living in 1578 and Edmond was then dead
https://books.google.com/books?id=zQAVAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=edmond%20prestwyche&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q=edmond%20prestwyche&f=false
would you agree that the person here as
https://books.google.com/books?id=JyjvAAAAMAAJ&dq=thomas%20radcliffe%20wimbersley&lr&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Isabel da and coh of John Butler of Ratcliffe + Thomas Ratcliffe of Wimbersley"
is identical to your above Elizabeth (da and coh of John Boteler of Rawcliffe) + Thomas Radcliffe of Winmarleigh
The abstract for Robert Lawrence is in the same volume, p. 56-57: https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n81/mode/2up
Douglas Richardson appears to me to have got the suggestion that James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles had children Robert, Agnes and Jane from Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, Vol. I, 1868, p. 199, https://archive.org/details/miscellaneagenea112unse/page/n217/mode/2up. See the list of children at the bottom of the Laurence pedigree. This is one of the works Richardson cites.
Robert is described there as parson of Warton, Lancashire. The Victoria County History for Lancashire has a table of rectors and vicars of Warton which shows Sir James Lawrence presenting a Robert Lawrence to the living on 6 March 1489/90, with RichardDudley succeeding Robert in 1507/8: 'The parish of Warton', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 8, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1914), pp. 151-161. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp151-
Thanks for this, Brad. I guess this is what Peter Warwick refered to at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/Vci4rw2vSEs/m/AmqAqxJvBwAJ.
Here we see some odd error
The Vis Lanc 1567
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=EQEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=GBS.RA1-PA54&hl=en
here at the bottom has an a line from John Rigmayden son and heir, which descends next to a Thomas son and heir m Jane Langton
So from Margaret Lawrence m Nicholas Rigmayden we should have her heir as John, and her grandson and heir as Thomas
However from the Herald and Genealogist cited above
https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis08nich/page/217/mode/1up
we have that Margaret is 60 and that "Thomas SON and HEIR" is 24
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 10:09:10 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
The other heirs were John Butler aged 25 and grandson of Elizabeth Lawrence,Oops, left out Elizabeth Hesketh's age: she was 16.
John Skillicorne aged 40 and son of Agnes Lawrence, and Elizabeth Hesketh, great-granddaughter of Alice Lawrence. If Thomas really was 24, he would more
fit as grandson of another sister, rather than simply son.
The other heirs were John Butler aged 25 and grandson of Elizabeth Lawrence, John Skillicorne aged 40 and son of Agnes Lawrence, and Elizabeth Hesketh, great-granddaughter of Alice Lawrence. If Thomas really was 24, he would more fit as grandson of another sister, rather than simply son.
The John Rigmanden who m Catherine Pennington in or about 1489 while both of their parents were *yet living* is called in 1489 the heir of his yet living father Nicholas of Wedacre
So the IPM you found cannot be this same Nicholas
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:03:30 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
The John Rigmanden who m Catherine Pennington in or about 1489 while both of their parents were *yet living* is called in 1489 the heir of his yet living father Nicholas of Wedacre
So the IPM you found cannot be this same NicholasAaaaaaaahhhhhhh
Sorry about that. I see that you can saying it calls Nicholas the "grandson" Therefore this is the elder Nicholas from the Vis Lanc 1567 and the intervening son has d.v.p.
Mea culpa
This also represents an addition to Genealogics.
Leo is showing Margaret and Elizabeth Pennington but not the Catherine who married John Ridmayden in or about 1489
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00673994&tree=LEO
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 1:00:12 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:Rosamond /Bolling/ heir apparent of her father 1497; "aged 26 and more" 1502
I would like to suggest a possible resolution to the question of "Who the hell was Margaret Kaye" ?
As I was pounding away at these families I happened to come acrost a Margaret Kaye curiously enough
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby
son of
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby; Knt 1544; "aet 15 1/2" 30 Apr 20H8 (1528); minor in 1519, livery in 1534 d 8 Nov 1558 by his wife Elizabeth /Tempest/ daughter of Richard /Tempest/ of Bealraper and Ewerby (as Lord); Knt 1513 and his wife
This Peter (Jr) married firstly Elizabeth /Clifton/ daughter of Gervase /Clifton/ of Clifton, co Nott; Knt (can someone identify the wife here??)
By this first wife he had
Frances /Frescheville/ m 11 Jul 1574 Saint Margaret, Westminster (Batch M001601 wj) Gervase /Holles/ , Knt
and
Elizabeth /Frescheville/ living 1591 m William /Tyrwhitt/ of Ketilby, co Linc; esq Will dated 1 May, proved 3 Dec 1591 bur 8 Jul 1591 Bigby
BUT Peter had a second wife.....Margaret /Kaye/
By this wife he had a male heir
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby; Knt; W
We are *given* that this boy was born exactly on 3 Mar 1575
HOW curious that some Margaret Kaye's husband just happened to have died a few years earlierPeter Frescheville by the way, illustrates that odd custom of the time, of buying wards and then marrying them into your family
Thomas /Tempest/ of Staveley, co Derby; under marshall at Tournay 1514-5 second son
born 1481/1483
had purchased the wardship of Peter
and then, quite probably while he was yet a minor
married him to his niece
Elizabeth /Tempest/
I would like to suggest a possible resolution to the question of "Who the hell was Margaret Kaye" ?Rosamond /Bolling/ heir apparent of her father 1497; "aged 26 and more" 1502
As I was pounding away at these families I happened to come acrost a Margaret Kaye curiously enough
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby
son of
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby; Knt 1544; "aet 15 1/2" 30 Apr 20H8 (1528); minor in 1519, livery in 1534 d 8 Nov 1558 by his wife Elizabeth /Tempest/ daughter of Richard /Tempest/ of Bealraper and Ewerby (as Lord); Knt 1513 and his wife
This Peter (Jr) married firstly Elizabeth /Clifton/ daughter of Gervase /Clifton/ of Clifton, co Nott; Knt (can someone identify the wife here??)
By this first wife he had
Frances /Frescheville/ m 11 Jul 1574 Saint Margaret, Westminster (Batch M001601 wj) Gervase /Holles/ , Knt
and
Elizabeth /Frescheville/ living 1591 m William /Tyrwhitt/ of Ketilby, co Linc; esq Will dated 1 May, proved 3 Dec 1591 bur 8 Jul 1591 Bigby
BUT Peter had a second wife.....Margaret /Kaye/
By this wife he had a male heir
Peter /Frescheville/ of Staveley, co Derby; Knt; W
We are *given* that this boy was born exactly on 3 Mar 1575
HOW curious that some Margaret Kaye's husband just happened to have died a few years earlier
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:I spent most of Saturday researching these Lawrences. In my last post yesterday afternoon I said I'd post more later "if time permitted", which it didn't on Saturday. I'll use Brad's excellent post as a framework to add more information that I found on
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.
Not only does Douglas say nothing of substance about Hugh Hastings, he states (p. 310), of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, "They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, and Robert (clerk), and two daughters, Agnes (wife of William Tunstall) and Jane."
I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.
John Gough Nichols, in 'The Herald and Genealogist' Volume 8 (1874), includes an article 'Lawrence of Ashton, Co. Lancaster', pp. 210-219. The article, which is not amongst the sources listed by Douglas on p. 310 of his 'Magna Carta Ancestry', includesa detailed pedigree of the Lawrence family of Ashton Court, and provides supporting evidences. The only two children the pedigree assigns to Sir James Lawrence and his second wife Eleanor (Welles), Lady Hoo, are sons Thomas and John.
The article does abstract the IPM for John Laurence of Ashton Court, the younger son of Sir James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles, who was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field 9 Sept 1513 ("fuit quod predictus Johannes Laurence obit nono die Sept. 5 Hen.VIII."):
https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis08nich/page/216/mode/2upother of his father's deceased sisters.
From John Lawrence's IPM, it's clear he died without issue (though he did leave a widow, Alice), as his heirs were one aunt, Margaret (Lawrence) Rigmaden (d. 12 Aug. 1517), sister of his father Sir James, and three first cousins, the heirs of three
As this volume of VCH Lancaster is amongst the sources Douglas cites for his entry on Thomas Lord Hoo/Eleanor Welles/Sir James Lawrence, I find it interesting that he proceeds to give Sir James and Lady Eleanor Lawrence three additional children, who,if they had actually existed, would have to have predeceased without issue their brother John Lawrence of Ashton Court.
On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:47:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:descent through Lionel Welles.
Is the ancestry Wikitree has for William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont and possible father of Thomas Lawrence, husband of Elizabeth Bull, at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Lawrence-Family-Tree-912 correct? It includes an Edward I
I've no idea from whom William Lawrence, husband of Catherine Beaumont, descends, but it certainly wasn't from John Lawrence of Ashton Court (dsp 1513), son of Sir James Lawrence of Ashton Court (c.1428-1490) and his wife Eleanor (Welles) Lady Hoo.This WikiTree entry for John Lawrence is incorrect.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lawrence-922
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 6:51:51 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:grandparents of John Boteler were John Boteler, heir of Rawcliffe Hall and Elizabeth, dau of Robert Lawrence of Ashton Court (d. 1450).
would you agree that the person here as
https://books.google.com/books?id=JyjvAAAAMAAJ&dq=thomas%20radcliffe%20wimbersley&lr&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Isabel da and coh of John Butler of Ratcliffe + Thomas Ratcliffe of Wimbersley"Yes, Will, it is the same person. Thomas Radcliffe of Winmarleigh (1516-1538) married (settlement 17 Jan 1527), Isabel Boteler, dau of John Boteler of Rawcliffe Hall (1489-1534, descended from Edward I) and Anne Sherborn (d. 1541). The paternal
is identical to your above Elizabeth (da and coh of John Boteler of Rawcliffe) + Thomas Radcliffe of Winmarleigh
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 6:56:37 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:miscellaneagenea112unse/page/n217/mode/2up. See the list of children at the bottom of the Laurence pedigree. This is one of the works Richardson cites.
The abstract for Robert Lawrence is in the same volume, p. 56-57: https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis01langgoog/page/n81/mode/2upThank you, Todd!
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 7:40:47 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson appears to me to have got the suggestion that James Lawrence and Eleanor Welles had children Robert, Agnes and Jane from Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, Vol. I, 1868, p. 199, https://archive.org/details/
Richard Dudley succeeding Robert in 1507/8: 'The parish of Warton', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 8, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1914), pp. 151-161. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/Robert is described there as parson of Warton, Lancashire. The Victoria County History for Lancashire has a table of rectors and vicars of Warton which shows Sir James Lawrence presenting a Robert Lawrence to the living on 6 March 1489/90, with
Very interesting Michael, thank you. The Lawrence pedigree from the 1567 Visitation of Lancashire indicates that Jane Lawrence died young and Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall died without issue. You've researched that Rev. Robert Lawrence of Warton died 1507/8, so it would seem that these three additional children of Sir James Lawrence of Ashton Court (c.1428-1490) and Eleanor (Welles) Lady Hoo, did indeed exist, and Agnes Tunstall had to have died before her brother's IPM was taken in 1513. I'll add these
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 8:07:59 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:may indeed have been a daughter of an Edward Kaye and Anne Tyrwhitt, as Charles Browning had it in 1911. But if so, I don't believe that Anne (Tyrwhitt) Kaye was the daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt of Kettleby Hall (c.1482-1548) and Maud Tailboys (
Thanks for this, Brad. I guess this is what Peter Warwick refered to at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/Vci4rw2vSEs/m/AmqAqxJvBwAJ.Paulo, back in 2016, I showed that Margaret Kaye, wife of William Lawrence (bur. 20 Dec. 1572), could not have been the granddaughter of John Kaye of Woodsome Hall (d. 1594) and Dorothy Mauleverer (c.1527-1591, descended from Edward III). However, she
Cheers, ----Brad
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:13:00 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:Saturday and today.
On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 11:25:06 AM UTC-7, michae...@gmail.com wrote:I spent most of Saturday researching these Lawrences. In my last post yesterday afternoon I said I'd post more later "if time permitted", which it didn't on Saturday. I'll use Brad's excellent post as a framework to add more information that I found on
James was apparently said to be 22 in 1450 when his father died, and Douglas Richardson says he died in May 1490. I am not seriously researching this family at present and have not looked for other sources for these dates.
81 of the Chetham Society’s publications. Strange…but not important to our discussion).I've no idea from which source Douglas got the third son Robert Lawrence, and the two daughters Agnes (Lawrence) Tunstall and Jane Lawrence.His source appears to be a Lawrence pedigree in Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 1st series, 1:199 (1868). (Oddly that pedigree is noted to be from the 1567 visitation of Lancashire, but it doesn’t appear in the full publication of that visitation in volume
I am glad someone has confirmed my conclusion - that it looks as if the pedigree in the 1868
volume of Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica may be mistaken in claiming that it derives
from the 1567 Visitation. I triple-checked yesterday evening the Chetham Society edition of
the Visitation, and was starting to wonder if I was just missing something.
OMargaret, Agnes and Alice, daughters of Robert Lawrence. Footnote: This appears from pleadings of 1536 in Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 163, m. 20, concerning the manors of Ashton, Camforth and Scotforth, and extensive lands, &c. (1) Elizabeth married John
Per the entry on Ashton in VCH Lancaster Volume 8 (1914), more details are given about the descendants of four aunts of John Lawrence. After his death, "the inheritance was divided among a number of families, representatives of his aunts Elizabeth,
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol8/pp50-56
Cheers, -----Brad
What about Katherine Beaumont's pedigree?I can quickly confirm the ancestry of Catherine/Katherine Beaumont down to her parents Richard Beaumont of Whitley and Katherine Neville of Liversedge, but I can't connect the daughter Catherine to these parents. It might be wise to take heed of this
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 7:04:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:note in her Wikitree Profile (which I'm sure you've noticed already):
What about Katherine Beaumont's pedigree?I can quickly confirm the ancestry of Catherine/Katherine Beaumont down to her parents Richard Beaumont of Whitley and Katherine Neville of Liversedge, but I can't connect the daughter Catherine to these parents. It might be wise to take heed of this
"The parents listed for this individual are speculative and may not be based on sound genealogical research. Sources to prove or disprove this ancestry are needed. Please contact the Profile Manager or leave information on the bulletin board."In checking my files, I found that I had downloaded "the Beaumonts in History" about 10 years ago. It does not show a daughter Catherine for the parents given to her in the Wikitree pedigree. So I think you can chalk this up as another Wikitree error...
This Catherine Beamount was discussed briefly and inconclusively in a thread here back in 2008, before it wandered off on a tangential (and irrelevant) discussion about Medlands).
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/7V06Bcw0okk/m/6b5HI2c1MRsJ
You may want to follow the suggestion I made in that thread:
"If you haven't already, you may want to look at www.beaumontfamily.com, especially its link to a downloadable version of the 1929 book "The Beaumonts in History". I can't vouch for the total accuracy of the
latter item, but it might be worth checking out."
At the moment, however, I'd say that Catherine Beaumont's ancestry is dubious at best - not unusual for Wikitree stuff as we've seen frequently.
.At the moment, however, I'd say that Catherine Beaumont's ancestry is dubious at best - not unusual for Wikitree stuff as we've seen frequently.In checking my files, I found that I had downloaded "the Beaumonts in History" about 10 years ago. It does not show a daughter Catherine for the parents given to her in the Wikitree pedigree. So I think you can chalk this up as another Wikitree error...
In case you've not already found this I will point out an issue with that original 2008 thread.
The OP links in three trees from Rootsweb, which links...No Longer Work.
That is, they do not go to the cited parents, or person at all, must to indexes.
Ancestry in their infinite wisdom, first entirely removed Rootsweb, and then after *much* outcry, put up a bastardized version which is ... almost... completely ... worthless.
So goes decades of research. Thanks Ancestry
Always wiser to have your own website
On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:48:02 AM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:note in her Wikitree Profile (which I'm sure you've noticed already):
On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 7:04:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
What about Katherine Beaumont's pedigree?I can quickly confirm the ancestry of Catherine/Katherine Beaumont down to her parents Richard Beaumont of Whitley and Katherine Neville of Liversedge, but I can't connect the daughter Catherine to these parents. It might be wise to take heed of this
."The parents listed for this individual are speculative and may not be based on sound genealogical research. Sources to prove or disprove this ancestry are needed. Please contact the Profile Manager or leave information on the bulletin board."
This Catherine Beamount was discussed briefly and inconclusively in a thread here back in 2008, before it wandered off on a tangential (and irrelevant) discussion about Medlands).
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/7V06Bcw0okk/m/6b5HI2c1MRsJ
You may want to follow the suggestion I made in that thread:
"If you haven't already, you may want to look at www.beaumontfamily.com, especially its link to a downloadable version of the 1929 book "The Beaumonts in History". I can't vouch for the total accuracy of the
latter item, but it might be worth checking out."
At the moment, however, I'd say that Catherine Beaumont's ancestry is dubious at best - not unusual for Wikitree stuff as we've seen frequently.In checking my files, I found that I had downloaded "the Beaumonts in History" about 10 years ago. It does not show a daughter Catherine for the parents given to her in the Wikitree pedigree. So I think you can chalk this up as another Wikitree error...
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:38:16 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you've not already found this I will point out an issue with that original 2008 thread.
The OP links in three trees from Rootsweb, which links...No Longer Work. That is, they do not go to the cited parents, or person at all, must to indexes.
Ancestry in their infinite wisdom, first entirely removed Rootsweb, and then after *much* outcry, put up a bastardized version which is ... almost... completely ... worthless.
So goes decades of research. Thanks Ancestry
Always wiser to have your own websiteSince you're pointing out dead links in the 2008 thread, here is another link from that same thread that is also dead - and that you might be familiar with. :-)
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
At that time, you said that you had "collated all major sources of medieval genealogy" on your website. Must have been a pretty impressive work - now lost to the ages, it seems....even perhaps "decades of research" lost. :-)
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:30:05 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:That's effectively a dead link - it leads nowhere. What you're saying is just semantics. If it's not dead, why don't you get the misdirected pointer fixed?
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:38:16 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you've not already found this I will point out an issue with that original 2008 thread.
The OP links in three trees from Rootsweb, which links...No Longer Work. That is, they do not go to the cited parents, or person at all, must to indexes.
Ancestry in their infinite wisdom, first entirely removed Rootsweb, and then after *much* outcry, put up a bastardized version which is ... almost... completely ... worthless.
So goes decades of research. Thanks Ancestry
Always wiser to have your own websiteSince you're pointing out dead links in the 2008 thread, here is another link from that same thread that is also dead - and that you might be familiar with. :-)
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
At that time, you said that you had "collated all major sources of medieval genealogy" on your website. Must have been a pretty impressive work - now lost to the ages, it seems....even perhaps "decades of research" lost. :-)No it's just misdirected pointer for the entire server
The work is still there, you just can't get to it.
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:03:43 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:30:05 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:38:16 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you've not already found this I will point out an issue with that original 2008 thread.
The OP links in three trees from Rootsweb, which links...No Longer Work.
That is, they do not go to the cited parents, or person at all, must to indexes.
Ancestry in their infinite wisdom, first entirely removed Rootsweb, and then after *much* outcry, put up a bastardized version which is ... almost... completely ... worthless.
So goes decades of research. Thanks Ancestry
Always wiser to have your own websiteSince you're pointing out dead links in the 2008 thread, here is another link from that same thread that is also dead - and that you might be familiar with. :-)
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
That's effectively a dead link - it leads nowhere. What you're saying is just semantics. If it's not dead, why don't you get the misdirected pointer fixed?At that time, you said that you had "collated all major sources of medieval genealogy" on your website. Must have been a pretty impressive work - now lost to the ages, it seems....even perhaps "decades of research" lost. :-)No it's just misdirected pointer for the entire server
The work is still there, you just can't get to it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 229:20:47 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,319,112 |