Parentage of Edmund Barttelot of Earnley b. c. 1539 [closed]

Question

I'd like to propose a change of parentage for Edmund Barttelot (Barttelot-1).  I've just been tidying up his profile and checking the available sources and it seems to me that:-

1. the entry in British History Online says the first Barttelot possessor of Ernley was called Edward; 
2. Berry's Sussex Pedigrees, Burke's Landed Gentry and American Families say Edmund's father was an unnamed 4th son of Richard Barttelot and Elizabeth Gates; and
3. the Visitations of Sussex and Berry's Sussex Pedigrees show William as the eldest son.

Accordingly, I would like to change the parentage from William (Barttelot-2) and his wife to Edmund (Barttelot-36) and his wife.  (I believe that the discrepancy between the British History Online's assertion of the purchaser of Ernley as "Edward", whilst we have Richard's fourth son as "Edmund" is a transcription error on our part - I don't see a strong source for the forename on the profile.)

I realise that this will impact a significant number of descendants, but it will only modify, rather than break, the lines of descent and I welcome further evidenced views on the subject.

Regards,

Chris Weston (Sussex Team).

Answer 1

It seems that Sir Walter Barttelot bart    a descendant of the family  would agree with you. He supplied materials for an article written  in the Sussex Archaeological Journal.

According to this,  Richard Barttelot died at Tournay in France. He was married to  a daughter of John Gates .He left issue, William and three other sons. The third son Edmund was the ancestor of the Barttelots of Ernley, who were settled and "had a good estate there for several generations".  https://archive.org/details/sussexarchaeolog27suss/page/44/mode/2up?q=Bartelot  Rev C J Robinson (from materials contributed by Sir Walter B. Barttelot, Bart,  MP Sussex archaeological collections relating to the history and antiquities of the county vol 27, 1877

See also the pedigree at the end of the article p 51-55  "taken from a MS Roll of the 16th century, in the possession of Sir Walter B Barttelor Bart; but its statements except where substantiated by references to records, must be accepted with caution"

I'd agree on the caution suggested by the author as although he provides some transcripts and references, I can't see anything to substantiate this part of the pedigree. 

The Sussex Record society has compiled a short bibliography for the family. https://www.sussexrecordsociety.org/dbs/biblio/surnames/B/%25Bartelott/

Most texts aren't online but most are at the West Sussex Record Office (though books and periodicals might not be available at present)  I am very familiar with the work of one of the authors, Rev Grosvenor Bartelot who was vicar of Fordington in Dorset . According to the catalogue in the Dorset history centre, he  was 'obsessed with ancestry'   He was  the son of  a Rev Robt Leach Bartlett (who is apparently in a 1952 version of Burkes) but  he changed his name to that of his ancestors: Bartelot . When he wasn't working on his own ancestry, he spent hours on Dorset families.  There's a enormous archive of his notes, original  records  and transcriptions of documents in  the Dorset archives, very useful stuff for local historians. In this case,  he was obviously writing about his own family and he had his own prejudices  but I would have thought he would have been equally careful with documentation. If you can obtain copies of  them they should  be worth looking at.

One  question (and sidetrack)  is who were the earlier Barttelots living in Ernley?   How was Edward Barttelot in Ernley in 1495 linked to the later Edward/Edmund in 1565 (it isn't that long a period) .  According to  the  foot note in the History of Sussex from https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/sussex/vol4/pp201-203#anchorn19  The earlier Edward had a wife called Joan who took over  the property in 1501. The footnote refers  to  Sux Rec  Soc  vol 23 which turns out to be https://www.british-history.ac.uk/feet-of-fines-sussex/vol3    There are a lot of mentions of an Edward Barttelot and others with the same name in the names index but I haven't followed them up

 I think  that I've found  a transcript of his will, written in 1496   Sussex Achaeological Soc. Vol 28 p204-5  https://archive.org/stream/sussexarchaeolo25socigoog#page/n244/mode/2up   (I couldn't work out any connection  of Edward and Joan with the pedigree;  maybe it was  the Edward, who  was disinherited for eating a pigeon on Good Friday  )

Comments

THAT is an ANSWER!

---

Distraction therapy, I was supposed to be writing about something from 1830 not researching the 1500s.  Hope there is something useful there.

" He  should have eaten a cygnet instead." ( my husband; remembering the spiel at Abbotsbury Swanery where the monks farmed swans, cygnets were categorised as fish so could be eaten on fast days)

---

Helen, thank you so much for this wealth of information!  I'll set about including it into the profile straight away.

---

Hi there, don't know much about the Barttelots, but I have briefly brushed past Blase Carryll not too long ago(son of Clemence Barttelot & Richard Carryll.) and I can tell you that the dates you have for Edmund (Edward?) and his wife are wrong. They have to have been born circa 1500 to be parents of their known children.

Clemence was a younger child of theirs and she married Richard in the 1542 & they had their 1st son, John, in 1543 (Richard Carryll's father John was sergeant at law for Henry VIII and died 1523. Richard died in 1576.) Blase, a younger son, was having children in the 1590s.

Here is the Surrey Visitation for Caryll (Carrell/Carrill)

https://archive.org/details/visitationsofcou43beno/page/88

 (John, his son who was 19 in 1623, was the 1st survivng son, but not the 1st son born to Blase & his wife Mary.)

I can't see that Edmund & Elizabeth Barttelot were having children in the 1580s/90s (not even sure they were still alive - I am dubious about the 1591 death of Edmund.)

 I noticed that Burke's seem to think that the three brothers who immigrated were issue of Edward of Redland; so a generation down from Edmund & Elizabeth (I don't think this is likely either & Burke's is really just a big papery doorstop.)

I found the book Helen was talking about above by R.G. Bartelot

https://archive.org/details/ourfamilysurname00bart

Only flicked through, but looks interesting - he has a bit to say on the American Bartletts. Also, he says he found the two sons (& there are only 2 on the vistation of Sussex) John & Thomas of Edward of Redland, in Wiltshire, England;  he doesn't elaborate (but an avenue of enquiry?)

Answer 2

I don't see the justification for William there in that line.

Answer 3

Not totally convinced by your argument for switching his father from Barttelot-2 William Barttelot to Barttelot-36 Edmund Barttelot but would not oppose it.

What however is the Sussex Project going to do with his profile? Does it need eight managers? What sources give places of birth and death? Is it enriched by citations to ThePeerage.com and Ancestry.com? Why have all five of his alleged children had their last names changed to Bartlett?

Comments

Hi Stanley,

Thanks for looking at this.  You've raised quite a lot of additional questions, so I'm going to address them briefly here, but if you want them fully discussed, then I think they should be opened as additional G2G items.  

What however is the Sussex Project going to do with his profile? 

The Sussex team is a part of the England Project that works to improve profiles of individuals born or dying within the historic county of Sussex.  We largely work on sourcing, connecting and acting on suggestions identified in WikiTree+ reports for those profiles, so what I'm planning to do on this profile is to work through the implications of the new sources that I've added and then leave the profile in as good a state as I can.

Does it need eight managers?

The WikiTree help pages (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Profile_Manager#:~:text=There%20can%20be%20more%20than,or%20five%20is%20too%20many.) say that "Four or five is too many", so I think it would be good to reduce the number, but I don't have the appropriate access to change that myself, nor do I know what the correct mechanism is for choosing which ones would be best for the profile.  The large number of profile managers was one of the reasons for opening this question in G2G, however, rather than discussing it directly with the profile managers.

What sources give places of birth and death? 

I've used in-line sourcing in the biography to link data to sources where possible.  If you look there, you'll see that birth and death information is currently supported by a listing on ''ThePeerage.com'' citing a source that I've been unable to verify.  I intend to carry out a review of dates, once the family relationships have been sorted out, because of problems already identified, e.g. Edmund Newington's supposed daughter Clemence married in 1542, so she cannot be the daughter of a father born in 1539. I may well need to ask further questions in G2G when I get on to those issues.

Is it enriched by citations to ThePeerage.com and Ancestry.com? 

ThePeerage.com is the only place cited that appears to support the birth and death dates, but in any case I try to be careful about removing sources added by others and these were already in use.

Why have all five of his alleged children had their last names changed to Bartlett?

I haven't changed the last names at birth of any of the children and I can't see signs of recent edits to them in the change logs.  Variations in the spelling of the surname has caused comment on the profile in the past, so I did carry out some additional research on that topic, which is documented in the research notes on the profile.  

Regards,

Chris.

---

Thanks, Chris, for a full and helpful reply. I'll look forward to seeing what you make of the profile. Just some minor comments at this stage:

1. Not sure what other WikiTree members may think, but I personally don't have much confidence in the entry at http://www.thepeerage.com/p44372.htm#i443712

2. The parish and manor in Sussex is normally written Earnley, I believe.

3. So far as I know the Sussex landowning family is usually, even though not exclusively, written as Barttelot. People by the name of Bartlett, whatever they may believe, are not necessarily related.