RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: kirsty.foreman on Monday 04 January 21 13:24 GMT (UK)
-
Hi I'm looking to find siblings of Lord Thomas bladgett of Haughley Manor born 1490 in Haughley Suffolk he died 5th June 1560 in Haughley midd Suffolk he was married to a Elizabeth aimsworth blowgate she was born 1509 in Haughley and died 1573 in Haughley
-
Where did you get the information about him, from?
Try an internet search.
-
I think the surname should be Blodgett. There are entries on the internet for that name in the same location.
-
1. Are you sure he was Lord Bladgett, or was he lord of the manor? There are no mentions of either surname on www.thepeerage.com which is pretty comprehensive, so I'd suggest lord of the manor. I can't find a Bladgett record in the TNA catalogue; probates for the time in Haughley don't relate to either surname.
2. There won't be parish registers for the time - it's too early.
3. Other possible sources are local histories, just maybe the Victoria County History. You might find that some 19th century antiquarian has done the research - though whether they got it right is another matter!
So your next port of call is the manorial documents. If you search on this part of the TNA site you'find where those documents that survive can be found: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/manor-search They are in four places: TNA, Staffordshire Archives, Suffolk Archives, and Essex Archives. It's likely that nothing is online, and also that the records will be in Latin.
Best of luck!
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=729044.0
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01q6p/
Hundreds of trees on Ancestry for family members. ;D
-
Visitations of Suffolk 1561, 1577, 1612 These were like a "Who's Who" of nobility and gentry in a county. An internet search should bring up a searchable copy. Another internet search for Heralds' Visitations should find an explanation.
"Medieval Source material on the internet"
www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/visitations.shtml
Haughley House . A very brief history. Belonged to Mary Tudor in 1554. Would that be the Mary Tudor who became Queen Mary? https://www.haughleyhouse.co.uk/history/
-
Hi I got to ask would Lord Thomas blodgett be related to Queen Mary. The reason why I am ask is because Lord Thomas blodgett of Haughley Manor would be my 13th grandad as I'm on ancestry and I have done a ancestry tree as well as dna on ancestry
-
Which Queen Mary - there are quite a few?
Why should he be??
How did you verify all the connections?
-
This is of interest. It's from just a shade later than the dates you're interested in:
https://www.academia.edu/5928539/By_Metes_and_Boundes_rediscovering_the_Survey_of_the_Manor_of_Haughley_c_1554_Updated_edition_2014_
The more I read of this the less I believe that this gentleman was nobility; gentry instead as lord of the manor.
Can you please tell us what lines of evidence connect you this far back in history?
-
Which Queen Mary - there are quite a few?
Why should he be??
The first Queen Mary of England, I assume, daughter of King Henry & Queen Catherine, unless there was another Mary Tudor around at the time. See my reply 5. The potted history of Haughley House says it came into the ownership of Mary Tudor in 1554 which is at the time Thomas Bladgett was alive. Queen Mary reigned 1553-59.
-
This is of interest. It's from just a shade later than the dates you're interested in:
https://www.academia.edu/5928539/By_Metes_and_Boundes_rediscovering_the_Survey_of_the_Manor_of_Haughley_c_1554_Updated_edition_2014_
According to this, Queen Mary granted Haughley manor to John Sulyard in 1554 as a reward for loyalty in supporting her claim to the throne against that of Lady Jane Grey.
Who held the manor before John Sulyard? Was it Thomas Bladgett and did he lose it by backing the wrong side in the dynastic struggle for the crown?
-
Which Queen Mary - there are quite a few?
Why should he be??
The first Queen Mary of England, I assume, daughter of King Henry & Queen Catherine, unless there was another Mary Tudor around at the time. See my reply 5. The potted history of Haughley House says it came into the ownership of Mary Tudor in 1554 which is at the time Thomas Bladgett was alive. Queen Mary reigned 1553-59.
hi is there pictures of where they lived at the time
-
This is of interest. It's from just a shade later than the dates you're interested in:
https://www.academia.edu/5928539/By_Metes_and_Boundes_rediscovering_the_Survey_of_the_Manor_of_Haughley_c_1554_Updated_edition_2014_
According to this, Queen Mary granted Haughley manor to John Sulyard in 1554 as a reward for loyalty in supporting her claim to the throne against that of Lady Jane Grey.
Who held the manor before John Sulyard? Was it Thomas Bladgett and did he lose it by backing the wrong side in the dynastic struggle for the crown?
that's such a good question and that's something I would love to find out as I don't no much about about them as my 12th grandmother was lady Rose Blodgett I only know this as I'm on ancestry as I took ancestry dna and the much furtheri done my family tree the more dna cousin kept poping up so that's how I know I'm related to lady Rose Blodgett
-
There are more than 1000 trees on Ancestry with Lady Rose on them. The first 2 that I looked at had William Foreman as her second husband, and no children from their union. How does that show up with dna?
-
https://gw.geneanet.org/debbieg53?lang=en&pz=andrew+william&nz=lambert&p=lord+thomas&n=blodgett+of+haughley+manor
https://gw.geneanet.org/debbieg53?n=aimsworth&oc=&p=lady+elizabeth
-
garstonite reply 14. Some of that doesn't make sense. E.g. Marriage to Elizabeth Ainsworth in 3 different years. Children on the list born over 30+ years span, eldest ones supposedly children of Thomas & Elizabeth (Ainsworth) but born 2 or 3 decades before the marriage (depending on which of the 3 marriage years is correct) and born when their alleged mother, Elizabeth Ainsworth was a child herself (aged 2 when the eldest child was born ;D). To sum up, I wouldn't believe anything on that tree without checking each item and finding a source for it.
-
The potted history of Haughley House says it came into the ownership of Mary Tudor in 1554 which is at the time Thomas Bladgett was alive. Queen Mary reigned 1553-59.
hi is there pictures of where they lived at the time
Haughley House is an hotel now. See the link in my reply 5. An internet search for Haughley House might find more pictures.
-
garstonite reply 14. Some of that doesn't make sense. E.g. Marriage to Elizabeth Ainsworth in 3 different years. Children on the list born over 30+ years span, eldest ones supposedly children of Thomas & Elizabeth (Ainsworth) but born 2 or 3 decades before the marriage (depending on which of the 3 marriage years is correct) and born when their alleged mother, Elizabeth Ainsworth was a child herself (aged 2 when the eldest child was born ;D). To sum up, I wouldn't believe anything on that tree without checking each item and finding a source for it.
I don't believe ANY tree as 100% correct ...I only posted for it to be read - exactly what you have posted I seen
-
According to this, Queen Mary granted Haughley manor to John Sulyard in 1554 as a reward for loyalty in supporting her claim to the throne against that of Lady Jane Grey.
Who held the manor before John Sulyard? Was it Thomas Bladgett and did he lose it by backing the wrong side in the dynastic struggle for the crown?
that's such a good question and that's something I would love to find out.
I suggest you research the history of Haughley and Haughley Hall and the surrounding area. There may be a local history society and books about the place.
There were several dynastic, political and religious upheavals immediately prior to and during the lifetime of Thomas Blodgett/Bladget/Blowgate. A man's fortunes could change suddenly, he might gain, or he might lose everything, including his life.
The decades long dynastic struggle for the English Crown between the Houses of Lancaster and York (popularly known as the Wars of the Roses) ended at the Battle of Bosworth 1485 which brought Henry Tudor, the first monarch of the Tudor dynasty to the throne.
Henry Tudor's son, also Henry, kick-started the English Reformation which changed the state religion of England from Catholic to Church of England. Land and properties belonging to monasteries were confiscated early in the Reformation and sold to lay people, proceeds going to the king's treasury, or the king gifted the lands to his supporters. Some monastic lands included manors.
King Edward continued the Reformation began in his father's reign. However, when Edward's sister, Queen Mary, succeeded him she tried to reverse the Reformation and turn England Catholic again as she was a devout Catholic. The next monarch, her sister, Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) continued the establishment of the Church of England.
There were several unsuccessful rebellions during Thomas Blodgett's life and many executions.
People gained or lost property, money, influence, status, depending on which side they backed in a particular struggle or whether the branch of Christianity they belonged to was the current official one. Some changed sides more than once. A man could rise from humble origins to a position of influence and then lose again when a monarch or a policy changed or if he offended a powerful person.
Just because a person was lord of a manor it didn't mean he had the title "Lord".
The only line of mine which I've been able to trace back to 1500's would have been tenants of the abbot of the local priory until 1539 when priory property was confiscated at the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Queen Mary granted that manor to someone in 1554. (She seems to have been rewarding her supporters by giving them property in 1554, the year after she became queen.) The manor was bought by the head of a local family a few decades later and owned by them for the next 400 years. Although lords of the manor, none of them had the title "Lord"; 2 were "Sir", the rest were "Mr.".
I hope this explains what was happening in England during Thomas Blodgett's life.
Apart from all the above going on, England went to war a few times, against France and Scotland.
-
I don't believe ANY tree as 100% correct ...I only posted for it to be read - exactly what you have posted I seen
I agree with you 100%.
My reply was really to draw Kirsty's attention to errors in it.
-
There are more than 1000 trees on Ancestry with Lady Rose on them. The first 2 that I looked at had William Foreman as her second husband, and no children from their union. How does that show up with dna?
-
The mathematics just don't add up.
kirsty.foreman:
Lady Rose was my 12th grandmother.
So,
2021 minus 1544 (the year in question) = 477yr timespan.
The general concensus is that a generation is 25yrs (average)
Divide 477 by 25 = 19.08 generations.
Surely, your 19th generation equals your 17x Great Grand Parents
and not your 12th as was stated.
Individual DNA from your 12th grandparent would be less than 6/1000ths of a percent
considering that you descend from 16,384 individual 12x Grandparents.
Looks a lot like wishful thinking.
-
https://www.haughleyhouse.co.uk/history
Don
-
This message is to the OP (as all longstanding serious researchers and FH aficionados know all this already)
Any person serious about researching their family history will look for all possible resources to test what they see on Ancestry trees.
You need to work back meticulously, generation by generation, using as many resources as possible (NOT other peoples' trees - they are only as good as the research that each person has done and many don't research, they just copy and assume). Start with the most recent events (ie your own birth!) and work back over the years. Each generational find needs to be proved by written evidence, preferably written at the time of the event, preferably more than one item of evidence.
I'm afraid that simply getting some matches on Ancestry proves nothing. The chances of sharing a meaningful amount of DNA dating back 400 - 500 years are minimal. AFAIIK Ancestry don't even give matches for anything that looks to be more than 8 generations ago.
If you're using Thrulines, they are based entirely on other people's suggestions, not on proven facts.
I've read nothing from what you've written to make me think that you've followed this process. I may be wrong, you may have done exactly this - but you haven't explained so.
Maybe you're related to this man, maybe not. But if you're serious about finding out for sure, it is going to take a lot of hard work and time. Rootschat is a brilliant place to help you with this. But you need to approach this rationally and at each point, if you need help, you need to explain to us just what evidence you have so far, so that we can try to help you to move to the next step.
Good luck with your searching.