Wedding contracts would have a tendency to imply the timeframe when you look at the and this amarriage ought to have taken put

1. Yet ,, when you look at the family history, everyone knowthat for every code discover an exemption. Good vexing area ofgenealogy would be the fact no one most knows exactly how to apply brand new exclusions orrules that have people decisive adjective instance always, maybe, most likely,more than likely, etc. It Tyskland kvinnor som sГ¶ker Г¤ktenskap could be interesting in the event that there almost every other instances ofjointures being generated a-year otherwise one or two immediately following a well-known wedding date.

dos. Is there an enthusiastic extant dispensation toward relationship away from ElizabethClifford and you may Sir Ralph Bowes who had been third cousins through Henry Fitzhugh,3rd Lord Fitzhugh otherwise next cousins, after taken out of the brand new 5th LordClifford? Who would narrow down the wedding time.

Arthur

Allegedly, in the event that good dispensation are looked for and you can offered, it might havebeen of the one of several after the, and may also can be found in brand new correspondingregister guide, in the event it survives:

Thomas Savage, Archbishop regarding York 1501-1507Christopher Bainbridge, Bishop from Durham 1507-1508, Archbishop out of York1508-1514William Senhouse, Bishop away from Durham 1502-1505Thomas Ruthall, Bishop regarding Durham 1509-1523Richard Leyburn, Bishop regarding Carlisle 1502-1508John Cent, Bishop off Carlisle 1509-1520

5. In case the 10th Lord Clifford do get married at the beginning of 1487 [state January] andhas Age afterwards for the reason that year, really does the brand new chronology maybe not really works?

John palms?

Age born for the later 1487, Henry created inside 1488/9, Joan from inside the ,etcetera. filling out the names of the publish from . In the event the (a) thechronology nevertheless performs; and you can (b) her relationships bit was not low; thenwe just have the fresh 1505 pedigree off Henry VII’s that’s when you look at the oppositionto the newest supposition one to she was a legitimate daughter.

6. Regarding the 1505 pedigree: Is the Clifford daughters the fresh new onlyknown Henry VII relations excluded? Were there other people? If that’s the case,won’t one to echo poorly on this document since a source?

Regarding comparisons We have made from the latest c.1505 Henry VII Relations pedigreeswith the new 1480-1500 Visitation of your North pedigrees, which are

About c.1505 Relations pedigrees, the fresh new Clifford children are perhaps not listedin good Clifford pedigree, but instead on the St. John pedigree. As the I’mnot regularly the newest St. John nearest and dearest, after the is the guidance asit looks regarding the c.1505 pedigree, while the extracted from the latest 1834 Coll. Best. etGen. post. This new phrasing inside quotations is strictly because looks inthe 1834 post (pp. 310-311).

“Zero. XII.”Out-of my Lord Welles daughter, Sir Richard Pole, Mistress Verney, SirJohn St. John, along with other.”f.288, 296, 317, 318.”Margaret Duchess out-of Somerset had around three husbands.” By the “John Duke ofSomerset” she got “My personal Woman new King’s Mommy.” who had “Brand new King.” whohad “Prince “Of the “Sir Oliver Saint John, basic spouse.” she got 3 daus & dos sons:

A great. “Edith, married in order to Geoffrey Pole out of Buckinghamshire.” That they had:A1. “Sir Richard Pole, Knt. married to the Woman Margaret, dau. out of theDuke regarding Clarence.” That they had: “Harry. “A2. “Alianor, married so you can Ralph Verney, Esq.” They had: “John Verney.—– [youngster, unnamed]. ——-[another youngster, unnamed].”

B. “John Ssint John, esq.” He had five children:B1. “Sir John Saint John, Knight.” who had “Five daughters and you can oneson.”B2. “Anne, wedd. so you can Harry Lord Clifford.” That they had “Jane. Mabill.Henry, child and you will heir. Anne. Thomas. Alianor.”B3. “E, married so you can Thomas Kent, Esq. away from Lincolnshire.”B4. “An excellent Nun away from Shaftesbury.”B5. “Oliver Saint John.”

C. “Dame Mary, wedded in order to Sir Richard Frognall.” They’d:C1. “Edmond Frognall along with his brethren and you may sistren.” Which have issueindicated, although not named.C2. “Elizabeth, wedded so you’re able to Sir William Gascoigne, Knt.”

D. “E, wedded earliest toward Lord Zouche; once to your LordScrope out-of Bolton.” Issue:D1. [by Zouche] ” Catesby.” That they had:”Elizabeth. George. John. William.”D2. [by the Scrope] ” Conyers.” That have issueindicated yet not named.

Margaret Duchess out-of Somerset, of the “Lionel Lord Welles, past partner.”had: “John Viscount Welles, married Cecily, dau. out-of K. Edward IV.” andthey had “Elizabeth.”