Roger Forster
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Roger Forster (bef. 1490)

Sir Roger "of Hunsdon" Forster
Born before in Adderstone, Northumberland, Englandmap
Ancestors ancestors
Husband of — married before 1511 [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died [date unknown] in Hunsdon, Hertfordshire, Englandmap
Problems/Questions
Profile last modified | Created 18 May 2013
This page has been accessed 5,611 times.
[[Category:
The Birth Date is a rough estimate. See the text for details.

Roger Forster of Hunsdon

Contents

Biography

Roger is the patriarch of Fosters in Hunsdon, Hertfordshire. He is said be the second eldest of nineteen sons by Thomas Forster and the heiress of Etherstone. Around the age of seventeen (17), he fled Northumberland after a family feud with some members of the Carr family.[1]

Considering the dating of his eldest son's birth,[2] the time it must have taken to arrange a marriage under such circumstances, as well as being about 17-years-old when he left his family's seat ... Roger was most likely born before 1490.

Marriage

Roger married a woman from Sussex with the last name Hussey, but her given name is unknown and her parents are uncertain. By 1511, she bore their eldest son John of Bramfield (d. 14 Nov 1558), escheater for Essex and Hertforshire.[2]

m. [Joan?] Hussey of Sussex. Issue:
  • 1. John III Foster of Bramfield, Herts.[3] (b. by 1511 - d. 14 Nov 1558).[2]
m. Margery ____
  • 2. Thomas (b. 1528 - d. 1571).[4]
m. (before 1548) Margaret Browning[3]
  • 3. Richard (living July 1553; d. 17 Nov 1558), gentlemen usher to Mary I.[3]
  • Roger[5]
  • Robert (d.s.p)[5]

Origins

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. ----
  • Father: Thomas Forster of Etherstone
  • Mother: ____ Featherstonhaugh

According to Collins (1720), Thomas Forster and a woman from the family of Featherstonhaugh of Stanhope had a younger son, Roger. Bateson's (1893) pedigree concurs and names her, "Elizabeth."

While Bateson (1893), notes that one of Roger's sons was a gentleman-usher to Queen Mary, Collins (1720), skips over any direct parent/child relationship and states that Roger was the ancestor of Sir Thomas Forster (b. c. 1549 - 1612), justice of the common pleas:

"From Roger ... descended Sir Thomas Forster, knt. one of the justices of the common pleas, who died the 18th of May 1612, in the 63rd year of his age and was buried at Hunsdon in Hertfordshire,"[6]

Pedigrees published in Metcalfe (1866), Berry (1830), Foster (1871) and Weis, Shepphard & Beal (1999), are more elborate and show relationships for his immediate family. All of them assert that Roger is the father of Margaret Browning's husband, Thomas (1528-1571).

Metcalfe's (1866) edition of "The Visitations of Hertfordshire: 1572 and 1634"
Berry, 1830

However, vital dates for Roger are elusive and make it difficult to assertain the time of his birth. Dating seems to begin with two of his sons.

Parliament focused on his "eldest son" John of Bramfield (b. by 1511 - d. 1558), escheator for Essex and Herts; and Richard (d. 1553), who was in the service of Queen Mary I.[7] The rest of the children named in pedigrees, were not associated with dates. So Roger's placement in the pedigree of the Forsters of Adderstone relies on a primary account, dated 17 April 1591, written by Sir John Forster of Bamburgh (b. by 1520 - d. 1602).

Primary Account

Sir John Forster of Bamburgh was the son of Thomas Forster (b. c. 1466 - d. 1527) and Dorothy Ogle (b. abt. 1488 - d. aft. 1550). According to most pedigrees (printed after his account), he is the great-grandson of Forster and Featherstonhaugh. But in his letter to Roger's grandson Thomas Forster of Hundson (b. 1548 - d. 1612), dated 17 April 1591, he seems to say that his great-great-grandparents were FORSTER (living 1415) and Featherstonhaugh, and implies there is a missing generation. He states:

"Roger Foster was my great uncle ... His father was ... Thomas Forster and his mother ... was Featherstonehaugh; his eldest son was ... Thomas Forster, who was my great-grandfather."
~ John Forster (d. 1612) to Thomas Foster (1548 - 1612) on 17 Apr 1591

If we take John at his word ... then it's unlikely that Roger, son of Forster (living 1415) and Featherstonhaugh is born anywhere near 1500, since it makes him a contemporary of Hilton and her husband and actually pushes dates even further away from Margaret Browning's husband.

It follows then that there is a problem with the dating for the descendants of Roger of Hunsdon, that either points to a missing generation in between Roger and his descendants ... OR ... his parentage is incorrect, which would call Sir John's account into question and possibly indicate that Roger belongs to the next generation (Forster/Hilton). [Note that Roger CANNOT belong to the generation after (Forster/Ogle), because it would erroneously make him a brother of Sir John Forster of Bamburgh!].

Common Construction

The following chart is a construction of the most widley accepted pedigree for the Forsters of Adderstone.[8] But it also makes a point of illustrating what Sir John Forster of Bamburgh wrote about and departs from the norm by highlighting the possibility of a missing generation. The dating has been compiled from data across the Forsters of Adderstone and its allied families of Northumberland. Note that dates given by Lewis (2001) are later, but they are also uncited,[6] whereas the dating here is sourced.

Also, a note of caution here: Pierce embellished the Forster pedigree in an attempt to tie the family to Baldwin of Flanders., (see Category: Frederick Clifton Pierce Fraud. It's also the case that prominent researchers no longer accept ties to Magna Carta baronial lines through Joan Elmedon,which makes the origins of Etherstone's husband -- as seen in Foster (1871), and Weis, Shepphard & Beall (1999) -- problematic, given that researchers have not been able to identify the Thomas Forster that she married.[7]

I. FORSTER (d. bef. 20 Mar 1413 [alt. d. 1425] / ETHERSTONE
II. FORSTER (Agincourt 1415) / FEATHERSTONHAUGH.[9]
^
|
| missing generation?
|
_
III.a. FORSTER (living Hen VI)[10] / HILTON (b. aft. 1439), dau. of Wm. Hilton (b. bef. 1408 or bef. 1418 - d. 13 Oct 1457) and [Mariotta or Joan], dau. of Wm. Stapleton (b. 1388 - d. 1458).
IV. FORSTER (b. c. 1466- d. 1527) / OGLE (b. c. 1488), dau. of Ralph, 3rd Baron Ogle (c. 1469 - 1513) and Margaret Gascoigne.
V. SIR JOHN FORSTER OF BAMBURGH (b. by 1520 - d. 1602).
III.b. ROGER FORSTER OF HUNSDON (b. ?) / HUSSEY

Given the above pedigree chart, it should be apparent that Sir John Forster of Bamburgh inserted a generation in between Featherstonhaugh and Hilton. But by doing so, it makes Featherstonhaugh and her husband, even older than suggested by this widely accepted construction. It also weakens Pierce's (1899), belief that Featherstonhaugh's husband was born in 1397 and lends weight to Foster's (1871) assertion that he died during the reign of Henry V (30 Sep 1399 - 20 Mar 1413).

Other Constructions

Intriguingly, Cavanagh (2014), published a chart that is nearly unrecognizable and in conflict with known pedigrees across the allied families in Northumberland, especially after the generation of FORSTER/ETHERSTONE. (The upper portion which claims descent from Joan Elmedon is moot).[11]CAUTION: This chart is uncited and in conflict with known pedigrees.

It's also in conflict with Parliament's documentation and the account by Sir John Forster of Bamburg, particularly because it asserts that Roger was the eldest son, instead of the second, and essentially makes him a brother of his son John of Bramfield. Cavanagh's (2014) pedigree goes like this:[11]

I. THOS. FORSTER / ETHERSTONE

II.a. SIR ROGER (b. abt. 1502 Bamburgh Castle) / JOAN HUSSEY, dau. of John Hussey, Lord Sleaford (b. abt. 1466 Lincolnshire - d. 1537).
III. THOS. FORSTER (b. 10 Aug 1530 - d. 11 Oct 1599) / MARG. BROWNING
II.b. THOS. FORSTER / FITZHUGH

While the reasons behind Cavanagh's (2014) construction are unclear, the author does *NOT* vouch for veracity of the chart in its entirety.[11] He's also not alone when it comes to the belief that Roger's wife was a daughter of Lord Sleaford named, Joan. Wikipedia, citing Angerville (1959), makes the same assertion,[12] but Cavanagh (2014), does state there is no proof to back up this claim.

Weis, Shepphard & Beal (1999), also call Roger's wife "Joan," but they do not make any attempt to change the Hussey branch she's traditionally associated with. Instead, they dub her, "Joan Hussey of Sussex."

That said ... it looks like those who share Angerville (1959) and Cavanagh's (2014) train of thought, are trying to connect the Forsters of Adderstone, Northumberland to the allied Hilton/Pigot families of Yorkshire and Durham.

Perhaps this was done by associating Roger's wife, Ms. Hussey from Sussex, with Jane Pigot's (b. abt. 1501 Clotherholme, Yorkshire - d. 1597 Leeds, Yorkshire) first husband, Sir Gyles Hussey of Caylethorpe, Lincolshire (b. c. 1495/1505 - d. bef. 1535) , who is thought to be a son of Sir John Hussey, Lord Sleaford of Lincolnshire.

However, the Hilton/Pigot alliance dates to a later period. It was Jane Pigot's niece, Margaret Metcalfe (b. bef. 1516 Nappa, Yorkshire - d. aft. 04 Jun 1566 North Biddick, Durham) who married Wlliam Hilton, esq. of Biddick, Durham (b. abt. 1508 - d. 1562), briefly de jure Baron Hilton from March 1559 to 1562.

Another glaring problem with Cavanagh's (2014) construction is that there is no FitzHugh in the senior line of the Forsters of Adderstone. We can be certain that no Thomas Forster of Etherstone, born shortly after 1502, married a FitzHugh.

From the time period of Ogle's husband, who left a will on 26 March 1526, the senior Forster line in Northumberland is well-documented. His eldest son Thomas Forster, esq. of Etherstone (b. bef. 1519 - d. aft. 04 Apr 1589), married Frances, sister of Lord Wharton (b. c. 1495 Wharton, Kirkby Stephen, Westmorland - d. 1568) and widow of Sir Thomas Curwen of Workington (c. 1494 - ante 08 Nov 1543). He also had four sons out-of-wedlock, who were named in his will, dated 04 April 1589.

Descendants

Sources

  1. Tomlinson, 1897; primary account by Sir John Forster of Bamburgh, (1591, April 17).[1]
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Bindoff, S.T. (1982). Foster (Forster), John III (by 1511-58), of Bramfield, Herts. History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558. Boydell & Brewer. HOP. Web.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 The Roll of the Royal College Physicians of London, 1830
  4. According to Foster-Barham, A. H. (1897), Thomas is the second son, (p. 17/192).
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Foster, 1871.
  6. Collins, 1720, p. 120.[2]
  7. Roger, his wife, and son Richard, are listed in Bateson's (1893) pedigree.
  8. e.g. Bateson (1893), Collins (1720), Foster (1871), etc.
  9. Foster (1871), states that Featherstonhaugh's husband fought at the Battle of Agincourt. This battle took place in 1415.
  10. Foster-Barham (1897), states that Hilton's husband lived temp. Hen VI (1422/61)
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Cavanagh, H.D. (2014). Colonial Chesapeake Families: British Origins and Descendants, 2, pp. 21. Xlibris Corp. Google Books.[3]
  12. John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford: Family v. 12:21, 25 June 2018.[4] Wikipedia citing: Angerville, H.H. (1959). Living descendants of blood royal, 1. Madison: World Nobility and Peerage. (see Google Books snippet).[5] CAUTION: This chart is in conflict with known pedigrees.
Bibliography
  • Bateson, E. (1893). "Forster of Adderstone," in a History of Northumberland, 1, pp. 228. Google Books.[8]
  • Berry, W. (1830). "Forster," in County genealogies: Pedigrees of the families in the county of Sussex, pp.192. The Roll of the Royal College Physicians of London/ London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper. Google Books.
  • Collins, A. (1720). "Sir Claud Forster of Bamburght Castle, Kt. Northumb," in The Baronettage of England, 2, pp. 120. London: W. Taylor. Google Books
  • Foster, J. (1871). A pedigree of the Forsters and Fosters, pp. 11. Archive.org.Archive.org.
  • Forster, J. (1591, April 17). Letter from Sir John Forster of Bamburgh to Thomas Forster of Hunsdon. Forster-125.(Tomlinson (1897), publishes a portion of this letter, but copies are available online.)
  • Foster-Barham, A. H. (1897). Genealogy of the Descendants of Roger Foster of Edreston, Northumberland. London: Adam & Charles Black. eBook. PDF.
  • Metcalfe, W.C. (1866). "Forster of Hunsdon," in The visitations of Hertfordshire Made by Robert Cooke, Esq. Clarencieux in 1572, and Sir Richard St. George, Kt., Clarencieux in 1634, with Hertfordshire Pedigrees from Harleian MSS 6147 and 1546, pp.143. London. Google Books.
  • Tomlinson, W. W. (1897). Life in Northumberland during the sixteenth century, 20, pp.118-120. Walter Scott. Google Books.
  • Weis, F.L., Sheppard, W.L. & Beall, W.R. (1999). The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215, 5th ed. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing. Google Books.

See also...

  • "Is Joan de Elmeden a descendant of a Magna Charta Baron?" G2G. WikiTree.com.

Notes





Is Roger your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of Roger's DNA have taken a DNA test.

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 6

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
WIP ... adding meat in hopes to better explain problems surrounding dates ... will be back and forth to edit and primp my new section in parents. Some of it is redundant with the first section because I haven't chopped yet. Fellow writers and editors appreciated!
posted by [Living Ogle]
Note: Some researchers believe that Roger descends from Adam de Bucton (living 1271), forester to the Bishop of Durham.[1][2] ... but there's still a bump since Joan Elmedon is not in this line, and the identity of her husband is a mystery, (see dispute by Magna Charta researchers).
posted by [Living Ogle]
TO DO: For better dating (which effects Roger ... and on up the line), need to track down the date of the fight with the Carrs -- referred to in a 1590 letter from John Forster of Bamburgh's (b. abt. 1520 - d. abt. 1602) ... who writes about Roger as one of his "four great-uncles." ... Just to add ... because John of Bamburgh was born c. 1520, it calls into question Roger's birth (as shown) ... all together, and may lead a researcher to date his birth around c. 1460ish (give or take to account for the alleged 22 siblings, and noting that Roger was *not* the youngest (he was 17 years old at the time of the incident) -- Nicholas of Newham was 3 years younger, but his placement among his siblings is a big question mark). Even still ... this does not solve the questionable father, said to be at war in 1415.
posted by [Living Ogle]
Forster-647 and Forster-456 appear to represent the same person because: Please merge. They have the same birth and death, and one of them does not have parents, siblings, children, etc , while the other one does.
This profile appears to be a duplicate of Forster-647.

Foster-6723 and Forster-647 appear to represent the same person because: This happens with spelling differences the existing person doesn't show up as a match.
posted by Glenn Kittredge