The Holyland thread!

[pwhhh]

I haven't sorted the later ones yet, as I've only recently come back to Holylands, but have a few Williams scribbled somewhere.   
I see lots of digging ahead, and a return to my ancient notes from Leicester Record Office!
I'll get back soon...
pwhhh

[amateur_genealogist]

Hi,
I have found this thread rather late, it seems.  I have  Holylands, too, though they have been "sleeping" since pre-internet days whilst other more obliging lines get sorted.

Is no one else looking at Stanford Holyland, latterly of Huncote?
I am descended from him through his daughter Mary and her presumably illegitimate daughter Frances (c1774) who is mentioned is Stanford's will.  This Frances, I believe, is the one who marries John Green;  their daughter Ann joined the crowds in St Margaret's Leicester, and Frances her mother as a widow was with the family in 1851.  My line then goes down through yet another daughter, so obviously Holyland is no longer a name in the family - still belong, however!

I had also wondered about the Halford connection, as the only baptism as yet for Stanford would seem to be Thomas and Margaret.  Still looking to prove or disprove this, though.

So all your posts are very interesting, and thank you all for much food for thought!

pwhhh

Hi,
like many, I'm stuck at the pre-GRO era in my family tree. One of the potential ancestor links I've been working on over the past few years is through Stanford Holyland's daughter Elizabeth (daughter of Stanford Holyland and Ann Biggs), who marries a William Levis.

Now about this Stanford Holyland;
first of all, I have some troubles understanding his marital life. He seems to have had children with both Ann Biggs (m. 1739, Narborough) and Jane Biggs (m. 1747 Misterton, after Ann's death in 1746). However, the baptism entries for his children Ann (1752), Jane (1755) contain the mother's name Ann? While there's no explicit mother's name for Susannah's baptism entry (1762), her burial entry (1772) lists Ann? And Stanford Holyland's will (available through FindMyPast) show his wife at the time of death to be Jane!

I'm not able to make much sense of this Ann vs Jane thing.

Now his will also contains the following curious passage:

I give and bequeath onto my daughter Mary the sum of twenty Pounds, to my daughter Jane the sum of ten Pounds, to my daughter Ann seven Pounds and ten Shillings, and to my daughter Ann Levis one Guinea to be paid to my said daughters respectively within twelve months next after my decease.

This seems to imply that he has two daughters named Ann: Ann (Holyland) and Ann Levis. Could Ann Levis be an illegitimate child?
On top of that, his firstborn daughter (Elizabeth) marries a William Levis.

Would there be a chance that the families arranged this marriage with William Levis, as Stanford might have come from higher standing (looking at the theories around his mother's Margaret Halford's lineage) and did not want to marry the mother of Ann Levis?

[pwhhh]

Hi,
I certainly see the problem!
With regard to the daughter Ann Levis, I wondered whether this might in fact be a mistake for Elizabeth.  But I do quite like your idea of an Ann being Stanford's illegitimate daughter - who then also could have married a Levis, of course.

Like you, I have found the wives seemingly mixed up: Elizabeth 1739 with Ann, then after wife Ann's probably burial, Mary in 1748 and Thomas in 1751 with mother Jane, But then two Anns in 1752 and 1755 with mother Ann, and Susannah, as you say, with an anonymous mother in 1762.
How can this be?
A mistake by the clerk who was writing in the register?  Lack of concentration - after all, the daughter was called Ann.  Perhaps he hadn't noted the wife's name but remembered that there once was an Ann?  But to do so twice? Hmm.

And could the daughter Ann Levis perhaps really be Elizabeth, the first-born?
She is not mentioned in the will of Jane the wife, although the other daughters are.  So is this daughter not hers?  Or already dead or provided for?

I have tried to approach this by looking at the Biggs family, but so far have got nowhere useful.
Were Ann and Jane sisters?  The best I can find at the moment is a will of a Thomas Biggs, a yeoman of Thurlaston, dated 1761, who has property in Huncote in the possession of Stanford Holyland.  He has a wife Elizabeth, but does not name his children (but as they are still minors, unlikely to be either of Stanford's wives.  A brother, perhaps?)

At the moment, it seems as if someone in Huncote/Narborough had a fixation with the name Ann!  But sadly, this would be very hard to either prove or disprove!

 

[amateur_genealogist]

Hi,
I certainly see the problem!
With regard to the daughter Ann Levis, I wondered whether this might in fact be a mistake for Elizabeth.  But I do quite like your idea of an Ann being Stanford's illegitimate daughter - who then also could have married a Levis, of course.

Like you, I have found the wives seemingly mixed up: Elizabeth 1739 with Ann, then after wife Ann's probably burial, Mary in 1748 and Thomas in 1751 with mother Jane, But then two Anns in 1752 and 1755 with mother Ann, and Susannah, as you say, with an anonymous mother in 1762.
How can this be?
A mistake by the clerk who was writing in the register?  Lack of concentration - after all, the daughter was called Ann.  Perhaps he hadn't noted the wife's name but remembered that there once was an Ann?  But to do so twice? Hmm.

And could the daughter Ann Levis perhaps really be Elizabeth, the first-born?
She is not mentioned in the will of Jane the wife, although the other daughters are.  So is this daughter not hers?  Or already dead or provided for?

I have tried to approach this by looking at the Biggs family, but so far have got nowhere useful.
Were Ann and Jane sisters?  The best I can find at the moment is a will of a Thomas Biggs, a yeoman of Thurlaston, dated 1761, who has property in Huncote in the possession of Stanford Holyland.  He has a wife Elizabeth, but does not name his children (but as they are still minors, unlikely to be either of Stanford's wives.  A brother, perhaps?)

At the moment, it seems as if someone in Huncote/Narborough had a fixation with the name Ann!  But sadly, this would be very hard to either prove or disprove!

 

I don't think it's a mistake if it's mentioned on three separate occasions over the period of 20 years. Another alternative I can think of, is that the mother of Stanford's last three children is a certain Ann Levis, while he was still legally married to Jane Biggs (maybe Jane could not bear him any further children?). Perhaps calling Ann 'his daughter' in his will was the only socially acceptable way to provide for her?

I know this sounds unlikely, but it would help address the two open issues (the name of the mother of the last three children, as well as the extra Ann Levis appearing in Stanford's will).

[pwhhh]

Could there perhaps be two Stanfords?
I have only found one baptism, but there are many details not yet found.
The marriage licence with Jane does not state whether Stanford is a widower or not, and I have not seen the imagethe image.  The page in the register does not seem to exist (online). Or does it?  (I have not been to the Record Office because of the pandemic).

[amateur_genealogist]

Could there perhaps be two Stanfords?
I have only found one baptism, but there are many details not yet found.
The marriage licence with Jane does not state whether Stanford is a widower or not, and I have not seen the imagethe image.  The page in the register does not seem to exist (online). Or does it?  (I have not been to the Record Office because of the pandemic).

Stanford's will mentions his wife Jane, the children that have baptism entries listing their mother as Jane (Thomas, Mary) and the daughters that have baptism entries listing their mother as Ann (Ann and Jane). This means there's only one Stanford with all these children.

[Annie65115]

Stanford's an unusual name and I think there was only one in this timeframe (although there were 2 more in subsequent generations).

William Levis (who married Elizabeth, Stanford's daughter) was from Billesdon. Where did they go? I can't see subsequent burials for William and Elizabeth. There's a baptism of a daughter Elizabeth in Narborough, then possibly a son in Houghton on the Hill, then nothing. Is there any record of a death for Elizabeth? Did Elizabeth and William have a daughter Ann, who could have accidentally been described as a daughter rather than a granddaughter in Stanford's will?

I can't see any baptisms for an Ann Levis in an appropriate timeframe who could have been an illegitimate daughter of Stanford.

Jane (Stanford's widow) also left a will and mentioned children Thomas (living in Huncote), Mary (a spinster), Ann Bradshaw (Ann married John Bradshaw of Enderby in 1775) and Jane Jarvis (Jane married John Jarvis in Narborough in 1784). As stated above, Elizabeth Levis isn't mentioned. Is this because she wasn't Jane's daughter? Or because she was no longer alive? Or had simply fallen out with her stepmother?!

Elizabeth was provided for in her father's will but not in Jane's. If she did die in that intervening time period, it narrows it down to 1778 - 1785.

[amateur_genealogist]

Stanford's an unusual name and I think there was only one in this timeframe (although there were 2 more in subsequent generations).

William Levis (who married Elizabeth, Stanford's daughter) was from Billesdon. Where did they go? I can't see subsequent burials for William and Elizabeth. There's a baptism of a daughter Elizabeth in Narborough, then possibly a son in Houghton on the Hill, then nothing. Is there any record of a death for Elizabeth? Did Elizabeth and William have a daughter Ann, who could have accidentally been described as a daughter rather than a granddaughter in Stanford's will?

I can't see any baptisms for an Ann Levis in an appropriate timeframe who could have been an illegitimate daughter of Stanford.

Jane (Stanford's widow) also left a will and mentioned children Thomas (living in Huncote), Mary (a spinster), Ann Bradshaw (Ann married John Bradshaw of Enderby in 1775) and Jane Jarvis (Jane married John Jarvis in Narborough in 1784). As stated above, Elizabeth Levis isn't mentioned. Is this because she wasn't Jane's daughter? Or because she was no longer alive? Or had simply fallen out with her stepmother?!

Elizabeth was provided for in her father's will but not in Jane's. If she did die in that intervening time period, it narrows it down to 1778 - 1785.

Those are some very good questions!

I've had no luck with any Ann Levis either, and Elizabeth was dead by 1785 if my guess is correct (see below).
Here goes what I've come up with in my research (and using a lot of imagination I guess):
- A William Levis was discharged on 26 Jul 1773 from the Royal Hospital in Chelsea. Aged 35 born in Leicester, he served 18 years and 6 months with the 1st foot guards. This very neatly fits with William Levis baptised 21 May 1774 in Houghton-on-the-Hill, and could explain the relatively long period of no child birth by his wife Elisabeth after their first child Elisabeth in 1761.
- A William (farmer, abode Fleet Fen, d. 1789) and Elizabeth Levis (d. 1782) are buried in Gedney Hill. This is quite some ways from Houghton-on-the-Hill (last sighting when son William was baptised in 1774), but fits my family lore that a William and Elizabeth came from Leicestershire to the Fenlands.
- And here is the link to my verified earliest ancestor: A William Leavis, gardener born around 1774, is buried in 1850 in the Elm parish. On the certificate of his second marriage in 1838 he lists his father as William Leavis, farmer.

Note that there is at least one more Billesdon Levis sightings in the Fenlands around this time period:
- An Amos Levis (transcribed 'Levice') aged about 63, sojourner, dies 1761 in Sutton St James (Spalding). Considering how unusual his first name is, I believe this is the Amos Levis baptised 1703 in Billesdon, whose daughter Hannah was baptised in Billesdon in 1751. Note that Sutton St James is only a stone's throw from the Fleet Fen where William the farmer lived for the last 7+ years of his life.

[amateur_genealogist]

It appears that Thomas Holyland of Little Glen (Glen Parva) is the son of William Holyland Sr, who dies in 1710 Desford.

Thomas Holyland marries Margaret Halford, 1712, Newton Harcourt. Thomas is aged around 30 and Margaret aged around 29.
Thomas Holyland bapt 1679 Desford - 1728 Aylestone/Little Glen.
Son of William Holyland Sr and ?Elizabeth Elliot?
Margaret Halford bapt 1677 Wistow/Newton Harcourt - 1750 Aylestone/Little Glen.
Daughter of Andrew Halford and Elizabeth.
They have the following children -
Ann Holyland bapt 1712 Blaby/Aylestone/Little Glen - ?Marries John Twiggs 1751?
William Holyland bapt 1714 Thornton - 1794 Little Glen. Marries Ann Boswell 1744
Stanford Holyland bapt 1715 Thornton - 1774 Little Glen. Marries Ann Biggs 1739.
Thomas Holyland bapt 1721 Little Glen/Aylestone - 1798 Blaby/Little Glen. Marries Elizabeth Rash/Rush/Rath 1747.

Interestingly, Margaret *could be* a great granddaughter of John Halford, Gentleman, of Kibworth Beauchamp. Younger son of Edward Halford, Gentleman, of Langham, Rutland. John was younger brother of Sir Richard Halford, 1st Baronet of Wistow and Newton Harcourt (Whom I also descend from on another line)
John of Kibworth had a son Richard in 1617. Richard had a son Andrew baptised at Kibworth 1654.
*See next post for another probable ancestry for Margaret*

I stumbled into yet another Holyland - Halford link: there's a marriage between an Andrew Halford and an Eleanor Holyland on 22 Mar 1733 in Polesworth, Warwickshire. This Eleanor appears to have been quite young at time of the marriage.