Categories: Mayflower Descendants On WikiTree.
Wasseburne -- Wasseborne -- Wasshebourne -- Wassheborne --Washbourne -- Washburne -- Washborne -- Washborn -- Wasborn -- Washburne -- Washburn
These yDNA results (Haplo group and markers) are identical for John "the Immigrant" Washborn, Sr. b. 1597 of Bengeworth, Robert de Washeborne b, 1476, son of Sir John "The Old Sheriff" de Washeborne of Wichenford and Sir Roger "The 1st Washburn" d'Wasseburne of Wasseburne and Stanford, b. bef. 1234. This yDNA evidence once again* proving the line of the Knights Washbourne through Wasseburne, Stanford, Wichenford and down through Bengeworth to Plymouth Colony.
For many years, prior to these tests being done, there were those who wanted to remove John of Bengeworth b, 1479, from the Wichenford line and even went so far as to say that the Washbourne families of Bengeworth/Evesham were not related to the Wichenford Washbournes; that they were an entirely different family that just happened to share a name. The YDNA tests definitively prove that both branches descend from the exact same paternal line.
The tests do not, by themselves, prove that John of Bengeworth b. 1479, was born to John of Wichenford and Joan Mytton, as the nature of this testing only proves that all of these Washburns' are of the same blood. It is "possible" for this 1st John of Bengeworth to have been from a generation or two back, but thanks to the yDNA evidence, we can say, without a doubt, that the John's of Bengeworth and thus, the John's of Plymouth Colony, were descended from the Norman Knights Washbourne in this male line.
The Manor at Little Washbourne, shown for Urse d'Abitot in Domesday and held in c. 1108 by William son of Samson*, was the ancient seat of the family. This property, recorded for another William son of Samson*, during the reign of Henry II (1154-1189). In 1202, a William d'Wasseburne is recorded regarding Orleton.. This William may or may not have been the same as he who is shown to have d. bef. July 1255, and was husband to Lucy, and father to Sir Roger d'Wasseburne. Roger is recorded as "of Wasseburne and Stanford and of Little Comberton". His son Sir John d'Wasseburne, is recorded as "of Wasseburne, Bretforton and Orleton in Estham". As below, the property is still showing for the main Knights Washbourne line, in that of Sir John of Wichenford, 300 years later ...
The Eastham properties associated with this family were several, including Eastham (Estham) itself, Orleton (Holreton), Stoke (Stoch), Krye (Cure), Hyde (la Hida) and Hanley (Haneleche), all held of Eastham and later some shown held of Tenbury Wells, Stanford Manor and Little Wasseburne ... Through feudal obligation or by marriage, these lands tied us to the lines of Toeni, Powis, Clifford, Cassey, Stoke, Ketel, la Hide, la Hull, la Pole, de Hanley, d'Abitot and others,
Little Washbourne in Worcestershire, England and Washbourne Manor itself thereon, becoming known as Knights Washbourne for the many from this house that bore that honour.
This Roger and John of the 1200's, are said to have been the first to use the surname, but this may not be correct. John is shown as John de Dufford until Roger died, and it appears that only then is he styled as John d'Wasseburne. It would seem if the "surname" was used at this point, he would have been shown as "John d'Wasseburne of Dufford". His likely son Robert, is however shown as such, being styled as "Roberto de Wassebourne de Bretforton".
Some 300 years later in 1517, we find Sir John "The Old Sheriff" de Wassheborne of Wichenford, head of the main branch, showing that he still held the properties of his early ancestors; Knights Washbourne, Smyte and Westmancote, also Norton in Bredon (Isolde Hanley), and the Wichenford estate (Margaret Poher).
"Our ancestry in Normandy, from Tancrède (whose ownership of alloidial land in Normandy has been set forth herein, proves him one of the Viking conquerors of that Duchy), to Urse d'Abitot, is established. It is clear that Sir Roger de Washbourne, ancestor in the Thirteenth Century of the American Washburns, was descended from Urse d'Abitot. The surname itself, as of the land of Washbourne (recorded as belonging to Urse in the Doomsday Survey of 1086, and which passed, with the rest of Urse's property, to Walter de Beauchamp, the husband of Urse's daughter, Emeline, when King Henry I seized it from Roger d'Abitot, Urse's son and heir), the adoption of the Beauchamp Arms (to be discussed subsequently), the fact that the known Lords of Washbourne, from Roger down, held this Manor feudally from the Beauchamps as Over-Lords: all constitute a chain of fact linking in family relationship the Washbournes with the Beauchamps of Elmley Castle, a few miles away from our family home in what came to be known as Knights' Washbourne."
Possibly most important next to Little Wasseburne, and maybe ironically the most insignificant, as far as size or value, is the Estham property, "Orleton in Estham". At least to Washburn researchers and family members like myself. Recorded associated with Eastham before 1125, we find William de Estham and son Sampson (Villelmo de Estham Sansone filio eius), then recorded in the time of Henry II (1154-1189), the manor of Little Wasseburne was held by "William son of Samson". In 1199, "William de Eastham" is again mentioned regarding Eastham Manor (Orleton was held of Eastham, later of Stanford). In 1202, "William de Washbourne", is shown having right of half a knight's fee in Orleton, and then in 1238, a writ from the king to the sheriff of Worcester, shows that "Willilmi de Wasseburn is to death".
As mentioned above, Sir Roger d'Wasseburne is recorded in the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1280, shown as "of Washbourne and of Little Comberton, as well as of Stanford". His son Sir John d'Wasseburne, is recorded as also holding the fief in "Orleton with Estham" of his ggg-grandfather, William.
Hundreds of years later in 1517, as above, in that of "the Old Sheriff" of Wichenford, we still find these properties being held by the Washbourne family. The point being, we can safely say that the Knights Washbourne male line, came without doubt, through the Samson's and William's of Estham.
Little Washbourne, Worcestershire, England
The Name—anciently Wasseburn or born. C. W. Bardsley's Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames states that Wasse was anciently and still is a common surname in Yorkshire. It is a place name derived from the various river and sea beaches subject to overflow by floods and tides, hence known as wasses and now as cashes. Wasseburn to our ancestors signified a flowing stream. The little ham that stood upon its banks took its name from the stream, and the proprietor or lord of the village was so and so de Wasseborn, just as the parson was the most important person in the parish. The form Wasseborn is the form first met with about 1100; and Wasseborn or burn continued in common use by the family with the occasional addition of a final "e" till about the middle of the 17th century when the family wrote the name Washbourne, a form which still prevails in England. Through all the first two periods, writers of public documents, even of wills, felt themselves at liberty to suit their own convenience or taste in spelling the name, so that great varieties of spelling are found in public documents and varieties in the same document. Thus in the will of John Washburn of Bengeworth, it is Wassheburns; in his wife's Wasborn; in his son's Wasburne and in the inventory Wasborne; in the burgess' will Washborne; in his wife's Wasburne and Washborne; in the public registers of Bengeworth pretty uniformly Wasborne. John the emigrant wrote his name Washborn. In America three forms of spelling have prevailed,—Washburn, the most common, Washborn, and Washburne, with even a greater variety of freak spelling of the name than is found in England, and not always by outsiders..
Sir Roger of the 1200's and his heirs had to start again. We know about the small fife of Orleton in Estham, near Stanford in Worcestershire, and how later it is recorded as a fee of Stanford Manor, the Washbourne Estate. Also the namesake Washbourne Manor in southern Worcestershire, both being brought to honor by this family, becoming known as "Knights Washbourne" and "Stanford Washbourne" respectively ....
Rogers family having become Lords of Estham, of Washbourne, of Stanford with Orleton and Little Comberton, recorded also with properties in Dufford (Defford), held of Geoffrey d'Abitot, Bosbury, Aldington, Bretforton, Smyte, Westmancote and Moreton in Bredon, Bengeworth and others. The main branch becoming the Lords of Wichenford, and eventually being returned to Roger's hereditary title, as Sheriff's of Worcestershire.
The first coat of arms met with for this family were recorded in the St George's Roll, c. 1285. The blazon, "Gules bezantée on a canton or a raven sable", suggested to early writers a familial connection to the Houses of la Zouche ("Gules bezantée") and le Corbet ("Or a raven sable"), but this connection has yet to be corroborated. It is possible that these arms were borne, rather, in feudal homage to these Houses, but again, this possibility is conjecture. The later recording of these same arms is shown here, by Joseph Foster in 1902, and suggests a slightly different blazon, "Gules ten bezants 4, 3, 2, 1" for la Zouche. This is actually a very common variation in heraldry and is noted so in the description of the arms on the page for Zouche.
When the vast estates that Urse d'Abitot had accumulated were usurped from his son Roger, a substantial portion of the same, including the lands of Little Washbourne, were ultimately bestowed upon his sister's husband, Sir Walter Beauchamp of Elmley. The Washbourne family that resided at Little Washbourne thereafter, did so as under-tenants to their now over-lords, the Beauchamps of Elmley Castle. The arms for this branch of Beauchamps' were "Gules a fess between six martlets or", as shown next.
Sir John d'Wasseburne, formally of Defford (Dufford), son of Sir Roger, is the first Washbourne to be recorded as having borne the Beauchamp "a fess between six martlets" arms, changing the tincture's to the colors of "Argent and Gules", thereafter being that which designates these Arms as "Washbourne"*.
* The tinctures (along with the cinquefoil/quatrefoil charges, as below), "is" what makes these the "Arms of the Washbourne Family".
The arms for Sir Walter Beauchamp of Elmley Castle bore a red shield with gold fess and martlets, and the Washbournes' bore a silver shield with red charges, as shown above. This feudal homage was also borne by and recorded for several other families. Members of the Wysham, Walshe, Waleys, Burdett, Blount, Cardiff and other families all bore these "fess between six martlets" arms in differing tinctures. All of these other families are also recorded as marrying into the Beauchamp family.
These are the Arms of the main branch, the Wassheborne's of Wichenford, who were seated at Wichenford Court, Worcestershire. Shown in the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire for Washburne, also recorded in Papworth's Armorials and Burke's General Armory.
Washburn College in Topeka, Kansas, adopted a version of this coat of arms, using creative license to alter the tinctures (colors), to its school's colors, and used it as its own logo. The college, originally chartered as "Lincoln College", changed its name to "Washburn College" after a substantial pledge was received from Massachusetts Industrialist Ichabod Washburn. Since becoming "Washburn University", the school has abandoned the Washburn Arms logo, now using a stylized "W" in its place. The school mascot "The Ichabods" is still in use.
On 6 Mar 2019 at 01:13 GMT Marshall Brown wrote:
On 28 Feb 2019 at 18:12 GMT Tina (Lane) Slack wrote:
On 19 Feb 2019 at 02:19 GMT Teresa Fortenberry wrote:
REALLY GREAT to hear from you!! Take cARE!! Teresa
On 18 Feb 2019 at 18:17 GMT B Lewis wrote:
On 21 Jan 2019 at 17:41 GMT Stephen Heathcote wrote:
On 23 Dec 2018 at 12:22 GMT Teresa Fortenberry wrote:
Sure is GREAT to "see" you on WikiTree!! Hope all is well with you and your family and Wishing you a very special and wonderful Christmas! Teresa
On 17 Oct 2018 at 00:27 GMT Liz (Noland) Shifflett wrote:
On 16 Oct 2018 at 22:23 GMT Liz (Noland) Shifflett wrote:
On 16 Sep 2018 at 07:24 GMT Andrew Lancaster wrote:
On 24 Aug 2018 at 21:03 GMT Robin Lee wrote:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hyde-3950 You now have created a new profile as the father that needs to be sourced.