M[emorandu]m the xxvjth day of maie an[n]o d[o]m[ini] 1593 the Towne seale was putto a c[er]tificate sent to Garnzey c[er]tifinige that Mathew Havilond of Bristoll merchant was the sonne & heire of xptofer Havyland, Christopher the sonne and heire of John Havyland, and John Havylond the sonne and heire of James Havylond of Poole. --Willm Dicker maior 
John de Havilland
|Christopher de Havilland|
|1546||Thomas Haviland||?||baptized 1546 |
|1548||Richard Haviland||?||baptized 10 of ** 1548 |
|ca 15 Jun 1550||Matthew Haviland||11 Mar 1619||baptized 15 Jun 1550|
(Godfathers Matthew Havelland and Thomas Mann,
Godmother Margaret Crook)  
married Kytchin, __?__, __?__
|1553||James Haviland||1613||baptized 1553  |
married __?__, Maindonail
|ca 17 Apr 1555||Margaret Haviland||?||baptized 17 Apr 1555  |
|ca 15 Dec 1560||Eleanor Haviland||?||baptized 15 Dec 1560|
(Godfather William Constantine, Godmothers Elinor Pitt and Cecelia Goddard)  
|ca 30 May 1563||William Haviland||?||baptized 30 May 1563|
(Godfather William Constantine and Richard Wight, Godmother Ann Mann) 
|ca 7 Feb 1564||Cecelia Haviland||?||baptized 7 Feb 1564|
(Godfather Edward Mann, Godmothers Amy Wight and Cecilia Crook) 
|ca 25 Apr 1566||Nathaniel Haviland||?||baptized 25 Apr 1566|
(Godfathers John Seward and Harry Benters, Godmother Alice Bingley)  
John de Havilland
|Christopher de Havilland|
|married ca 1587|
Amy "Anne" Mann (Mrs. Amy Pitt)
- 1539: Not mentioned in the Poole muster of 1539
- 1542: First mention of Christopher in the port records for Poole in early 1542 (1541/2) when he is listed as the owner of some cloth and lead on the ‘Mawdleyn’ of Poole (PRO E122/207/6)
- 1544: Married Cecily Manne 16 September 1544 at Poole (Poole Parish Register); assessed on £15 of goods for the subsidy this year (Dorset Tudor Subsidies 1523-93, ed T L Stoate, Almondsbury, 1982)
- ca 1547: Christoper was assessed at £15 of goods for lay subsidy (PRO E179 104/180)
- ca 1550: Christopher was assessed at £10 in goods for lay subsidy (PRO E179 104/190)
- 1553-8: Christopher was mentioned as a juror on a manor roll for Canford Manor, dating from reign of Queen Mary I. (DRO CMR 12).
- 1553: Christopher was appointed Bailiff of Poole (Poole borough record book No 1, op cit). This means he became an administrator for judges at sessions of the royal court, acted as an executor of writs, assembled juries, collected fines, and otherwise represented the Queen's business in the city.
- CULTURAL CONTEXT: 1553-8: Christopher's appointment to Bailiff of Poole (a position not to be confused with the Bailiff of the isle of Guernsey) might have coincided with the death of King Edward VI on 6 July 1553 and the accession of Queen Mary I, an important piece of context given that Mary I was strictly Catholic and persecuted Protestants. The political climate of this period was marked by a rise of religious intolerance in France and England between the Catholic Church and the reformed Protestants. While the de Havillands might have begun with the Catholic church (having been long associated with the church of St. James in Poole), it is possible that Christopher was sympathetic to Protestants. His son Thomas is alleged to have been staunchly Protestant in the years following Mary's reign , and Christopher's apparent grandson William immigrated to the New World , probably to seek freedom from religious persecution like just about everyone else who arrived there. William and his descendants became Quakers there.  The so-called Heresy Acts had been revived during his period, and as a Bailiff and Juror Christopher might have found himself in the uncomfortable position of "judging" or administrating cases against Protestant reformers. Executions against Protestants commenced in this precise period, what history calls the Marian Persecutions. (See List of Protestant Martyrs of the English Reformation. Of note is an absence of martyrs from Poole.) Also note the burning of the three "Guernsey Martyrs" in 1556 at St. Peter Port, supported by then Bailiff of Guernsey, Hellier Gosselin. This might have had an emotional and political impact on the family, being that the de Havillands on Guernsey had been Jurats (a station that reports to the Bailiff on Guernsey) before, but apparently not during, the Marian Persecution period. It is not unreasonable to assume that the horrific Guernsey Martyrs episode incited a move of the de Havilland family toward Protestantism, which impacted not only Christopher's eventual fate in Poole but even the decision to remove the Nobiliary particle "de" from the surname of Christoper's and other English branches, including his descendants, in order to disassociate themselves from the Catholic-aligned French. Thus "de Havilland" became just "Haviland" in the years that followed, except for those branches on Guernsey. While we have no evidence to support these speculations, it's not possible to dismiss this cultural context as having an impact on the de Havillands, as well as their footprints (or absence thereof) in the official record, especially given their political and social stations.
- 1558/9: Christopher was assessed at £15 in goods for the lay subsidy. (PRO E179 104/211)
- 1559: On 24 February, Christopher was one of the men on of the jury for the Court of Admiralty at Poole. (Old Record Book No 2, DRO DC/PL CLA 24)
- 1563: Christopher paid 7s 4d for house and various pieces of land in Poole, the third highest amount in the town. (Chief rent, 28 April 1563, DRO DC/PL CLA 56)
- 1568: Christopher was one of many men who signed to authorise certain members of the town council to spend money on behalf of the rest in obtaining the new charter for the town of Poole (Old Record Book 3, DRO DC/PL CLA 25)
- 1569: Elected Mayor of Poole for the first and only time. For mysterious reasons, he either did not take the office or did not hold it long, for the record indicates he was replaced that same year by his associate William Constantine (whom is also named as a Godfather for some of his children). There is another instance of two mayors serving in the same year in the list from 1490-1590, and in that case the new Mayor, or Mayor Elect, had died. (The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, John Hutchins, London, Bowyer & Nichols, 1774 – also more recent editions.) However we should not assume that Christopher simply died in 1569. He may have returned to Guernsey for some period between 1569-1586. Or, records might have simply been lost.
- CULTURAL CONTEXT: As above indicated, there are signals in the record that members of the de Havilland family were converting to Protestantism, and Mary I was executing known Protestants during this time. Poole being a prominent port city, receiving ships from France, would have placed Christopher in a precarious situation in his years in office if he decided to support Protestants, or at least not persecute them. We have potential evidence that he stayed in line with traditional Catholic alignment (see 1586 below).
- 1571: Lay subsidy list for Poole does not mention Christopher Haviland (PRO E179 105/223)
- 1574: The 1574 Poole ‘Census’ lists 1373 people who were living there at this time. Christopher Haviland and his family are not there. (Poole Census 1574, Poole Borough Archives, 1992)
- 1578: Named in the Will of father-in-law John Mann of Poole, Dorsetshire, proved 1578 in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. (It is possible for a Will to be written prior to the death of a named inheritor. However that is not likely here, given the wording of the Will and social class of the family, and we must cite this as evidence that Christopher was probably still alive but possibly no longer located in Poole. He might have gone back to Guernsey, where Catholicism faded since the end of Mary I's reign. But we need supporting evidence of this.)
- 1586: The following is from secondary source material only, and no primary evidence has been cited nor found to substantiate it. Per Josephine Frost, Christopher "was one of those who obtained the Municipal Charter of Queen Elizabeth in 1586, this being considered as the foundation of the Municipal Franchises of Poole. From its dissolution in 1550 until 1586, Christopher was a Trustee of the property of the Guild of St. George. Also see The History of the Town and County of Poole by John Sydenham (1839), pp. 335-336, and 415. 
The burial records in the Poole parish register are very difficult to use. There are clear entries from 1538-c1541, then for several years they are nearly all illegible. Another batch of more legible ones occur in the period 1547-57, and then they are almost impossible to decipher again for many years. Part of the problem is very difficult handwriting, but then main reason is that at some time in history the register was damaged by damp, and on many of the pages it is only possible to read the top and bottom entries – all those in the middle are practically invisible. None of this is helped by having to use microfilm, and I must admit that I have not enquired whether it would be possible to try looking at the original under UV light or similar. I think the register may have been in slightly better state when examined by 19th century genealogists, but believe that the water damage had occurred prior to that time. What all this amounts to is that there is no way of telling if this is the only reference to the burial of a Christopher Haviland, or if there could have been another one that is now illegible. 
- It is probable that there was more than one Christopher Havilland son of James living in Poole around the same period. But only one of them became Bailiff of Poole and was briefly elected as Mayor of that place, and while the "traditional" notion is that he was the son of James son of James, we are here proposing to correct that, based on hard evidence, that he was the son of John the son of James.
- The Matthew to which the Book of the Staple (quoted at the top of this profile) is referring was the Sheriff of Bristol in 1594, and Mayor of Bristol in 1607. He was a major character of the time, managing a fleet of ships which he contributed to the fight the Catholics in the Huguenot Wars of France. As stated above, it is apparently the reason why William Haviland, the immigrant who became the progenitor of most Havilands in North America, might have had the will and the means to get to America in the first place - via his uncle Matthew (or maybe even if Matthew was his father, as that has been considered). However, this record very clearly makes Matthew the son of a Christopher, which is already well established... But various genealogists have placed this Matthew as the son of Christopher, the Bailiff of Poole. Whether that is the same Christopher or not is not yet known for sure. But this record then states that Christopher (whether he was our Bailiff or not) was the son of John, son of James, of Poole.
- In regards to option #2, the aforementioned John V. S. de Havilland (née Haviland), son of the Philadelphia architect John Haviland, Esq., anonymously revised a manuscript written by Thomas Fiott de Havilland known as "The Chronicle de Havilland" in which he presented Christopher, the Mayor of Poole, as the son of James (the Mayor of Poole in 1502 and 1506) the son of James (Mayor of Poole 1494, 1498) the son of Thomas, Sieur de Haveilland (Jurat of Guernsey 1470). This is based partially on the Visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623, partially on a pedigree in The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, by John Huthcins,  and partially on the said 1589 death record in the Poole Parish Register (which might be the origin of the problem). The pedigree published in John V. S. de Havilland's Chronicle de Havilland is a combination of multiple Visitations with his own interpolations. In that, he clearly depicts Christopher (Mayor of Poole in 1569), as the son of "James Havellande" (Mayor of Poole in 1502 and 1506), by his wife Julia, because that was his belief. We do not believe that to be correct.
- When Josephine C. Frost began her book, The Haviland Genealogy, based on dialog between Frederick Haviland (son of Robert Barclay Haviland of Haviland Porcelain fame) and numerous other members of the family, including John V.S. de Haviland's first cousin Dr. Alfred Haviland, she commissioned a Haviland researcher in England named Eduardo Haviland Hillman who discovered the "errors" in The Chronicle and believed that our beloved "chronicler" had simply confused James (Mayor of Poole 1502, 1506) with James (Jurat of Guernsey 1517) who was more contemporary with Christopher's generation. So he thought "Bailiff Christopher" was the son of "Jurat James" not "Mayor James," partially citing that the Visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623 indicates that Christopher's father was of the "isle of Guernsey."
- Burke's Landed Gentry published the same theory as Eduardo Haviland Hillman: "James de Havilland, Esq., heir to his brother 1537, Jurat 1517, m. 1511, Colliche, dau. of Nicholas Fouachin, Esq. Seigneur d'Anneville, in Guernsey, and widow of Thomas Sausmarez; by her he left issue at his decease, 14 Oct 1540 ... Christopher, who settled at Poole, Dorset, and m. Cecilia Mann, was ancestor of Haviland-Burke, the Havillands of Ditton Hall, and De Havilland of Langford Court, Somerset."  There is no surprise that Landed Gentry echoes the Visitation assumption, as that is its purpose, but it is interesting that the Chronicle contradicted it. And it might not have been John V.S. de Havilland's contradiction, but rather that of the original author of the Chronicle: Thomas Fiott de Havilland, the builder of Havilland Hall and the first known enthusiast of the surname whose work has been passed down. In his own privately printed family tree, now owned by descendants, and possibly printed in the original copies of the Chronicle, claimed that James de Havilland and Helena were the parents of Christopher! On close inspection it seems clear that he skipped a generation by accident, as he states that James de Havilland "settled at Poole between 1450 and 1475," but then depicts his son Christopher m. 1541 (66 years after his father settled here) to Cecily Mann. While Thomas did not cite evidence, he was clearly not sure of himself, stating that James was a "contemporary of Thomas in the Guernsey Branch (a Jurat in 1474 and 1481), [who] may have been his brother." John V.S. might have recognized that a generation was skipped and in his rewrite of the Chronicle attempted to correct the error by adding another son named James: "By Helena de Beauvoir, James de Havelland had four sons, Richard, James, John, William... We now return to the surviving line of James Havelland, Esquire, son of James and Hélène. He left by his wife Julia an only son, Christopher Havelland, born circa 1512; married 16th September 1544, Cecilia, daughter of John Mann, Esquire." 
- Further, Eduardo believed that John V. S. de Havilland split one man into two. He stated, "There is proof that there was a James de Havelland Mayor of Poole in the years 1494, 1498, 1502, and 1506, but no reason to think, without evidence, that they were not one and the same person."  In the pedigree that John V. S. de Havilland republished, James who was elected Mayor in 1494 and 1498 died in 1502, and stated as a source that the date is recorded on brass in the church of St. James. We have asked the church of St. James to search for this evidence in 2017 but they could not find it. That does not necessarily mean it was not there. Given the Reformation and the conversion of the de Havilland family from Catholic to Protestant, one might surmise that some connections to the Catholic church were purposely removed. But that is wild speculation, and has no bearing on the true father of "Bailiff Christopher."
- The visitation (which is an official recording of a potential Armigerous Bearer's ancestry by the Harolds in order to register and award a Coat of Arms) was signed by Robert de Havilland of Hawkesbury, son of Matthew (Mayor of Bristol 1607) son of Christopher. It appears to be the same Matthew son of Christopher as in the book of the Staple. So why would Matthew's son sign a record that records the wrong father for Christopher?
- One theory is that at the time Robert signed the document, it might not have looked wrong. The record is currently illegible. Someone wrote in pencil "Jacobus" into the official record at some point later in time. (Jacobus is the Roman form of the name James.) The original record might have originally said "John," or in Roman form, "Johannes", and in really faded old script, Jacobus and Johannes might look indistinguishable.
- Robert was born 11 Feb 1576. He signed the Visitation in 1623, four years after his father Matthew's death in 1619. We do not know when his grandfather "Bailiff Christopher" died, nor where. Some researchers have suggested that Matthew might not have known whether his great grandfather was named John or James. The same record also lists Christopher's wife as Ann, which might have been Robert's step-grandmother. She was his half-grand-aunt, as she was the half-sister of Cecelia Mann, but not his true grandmother. According to the Visitation of Kent in 1592 Amy had married William Pitt, Mayor of Poole in 1593 (who was the son of William Pitt & Helena de Havilland, and brother of John Pitt who was the ancestor of the future Prime Ministers of England).
- Visitations are only primary evidences for data supporting subjects living at the time they were signed. They are secondary evidences for data supporting subjects deceased, and can be based on conjecture, memory and later alterations.
Have you taken a DNA test for genealogy? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
On 20 Feb 2017 at 12:12 GMT Christopher Haviland wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 at 22:02 GMT Christopher Haviland wrote: