upload image

Whalley Pedigree Research

Privacy Level: Open (White)
Date: About 1066 to about 1583
Location: [unknown]
Surnames/tags: Whalley Whaley
This page has been accessed 134 times.

Contents

Whalley of Leicestershire Pedigree

Most of the Whalley line from Wyamarus Whalley, who is said to have fought at the Battle of Hastings down to Richard Whalley who married Elizabeth Leak is based on a pedigree which seems to have been drawn up in 1619. The later generations of the pedigree overlap with those reported in the Visitations. This pedigree is reported in two publications with some differences between them:

Nichols' version is fuller, naming more children, with additional details from other records, and extending to later generations. It seems likely he elaborated the earlier pedigree, and added material from the visitations.

The pedigree is very problematic. Richard Whalley sued to recover lands at Darlaston, Staffordshire, and elsewhere in 11 Edward 4 (1471-1472),[1] and a few years later, in 18 Edward IV (1478-79), he contracted to marry Elizabeth Leek,[2] but he is shown as only sixth in line of descent from Wymarus, who is said to have lived 400 years earlier. An average of 65-70 years per generation is very unlikely.

Even more problematic is that Richard's father Henry is shown having a full first cousin also named Henry (son of Roger Whalley) who was childless and consequently disposing of his property in 3 Edward I (1274-75) and 8 Edward I (1279-80). It is impossible for such close cousins to be alive two centuries apart.

There are also difficulties in the later part of the pedigrees. The 1614 Visitation of Nottinghamshire, and Fetherston's version of the 1619 pedigree, show Richard and his wife Elizabeth Leek, who from the evidence above married about 1478, followed by two generations named Thomas before Richard (1499-1582),[3] whereas the documents cited by Thoroton show that there was only one Thomas.[2] It is conceivable that a grandchild was born 21 years after their marriage but not a great-grandchild.

Further Research

The notes above are sufficient to show that the published pedigrees contain errors and more detailed work is required on every generation from Wymarus down to Richard (1499-1582) to establish a reliable line of descent.

Affected Profiles

The line from John and Dannes is partly replicated in:

And the later part has been detached due to the chronological difficulties.

Bibliography

  1. Boyd, W. "Extracts from the Plea Rolls, 34 Henry VI to 14 Edward IV, inclusive". Collections for a History of Staffordshire, New Series, Volume 4 (1901), pages 181-182.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Thoroton, Robert. The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire (Nottingham: J Throsby, 1790) Volume 1, Pages 244-252.
  3. Marshall, George William. The Visitations of the County of Nottingham in the Years 1569 and 1614. Publications of the Harleian Society, Volume 4. (London: Harleian Society, 1871) Pages 117-118, Pedigree of Whalley.


See also:

  • Stirnet has an attempt at synthesis of various published pedigrees: Whalley1.
  • Clay, John W. Familiae Minorum Gentium: Volume 4. Publications of the Harleian Society, Volume 40. (London: Harleian Society, 1896.) Pages 1230-1231.
    This also contains errors as it conflates Richard who married Elizabeth Leek with his son Thomas.
  • Whaley, Samuel The English Record of the Whaley Family and its Branches in America. (Ithaca, New York: Andrus and Church, 1901).
    This seems to be the immediate source of most of what is on Wikitree as of 6 April 2024. It is derived from Nichols, but with embellishments, for example, Wymarus moves from simply fighting at Hastings to being a standard bearer.
  • Master, George Streynsham. Some Notices of the Family of Master, of ... Kent ... Lancashire and ... Surrey... (Mitchell and Hughes, London, 1874) p. 98.
    This account is entirely based on Fetherston's version of the pedigree.




Collaboration
  • Login to edit this profile and add images.
  • Private Messages: Send a private message to the Profile Manager. (Best when privacy is an issue.)
  • Public Comments: Login to post. (Best for messages specifically directed to those editing this profile. Limit 20 per day.)


Comments

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.