Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, the Younger - Is he the father of "The Cholmondeley Ladies"?

Michael Joseph Gerst
Trevor Fredrick Hyde
Private User
Graham Allen Ringwood

Stirnet's "Cholmondeley02" page (http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/cc4aq/cholmondeley02.php) shows the following:

* Sir Hugh "the younger" (son of Sir Hugh "the elder" by Anne/Amy Dorman) married Mary Holford (daughter of Christopher of Holford)

* among Sir Hugh and Mary's issue were Frances (who married Sir Peter Venables of Kinderton) and Lettice (who married Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st Baronet)

* believed - but not confirmed - to be among Sir Hugh and Mary's issue was Mary (who married Sir George Calveley of Lea)

It seems to me that the "missing" profiles about which you're wondering simply haven't been created yet. I plan to eventually add them, if no one beats me to the task.

(Geni reports that Frances Cholmondeley and Sir Peter Venables of Kinderton are my 11th great grandparents.)

Task already done. Created all of the children's profiles, and merged Lettice's. I've also added the painting as Lettice's, Mary's and an unknown son of Mary's profile picture.

Thanks! I did some cleanup, although I was not able to fix the birth order of the children. I am guessing that the birth order is:

* Robert
* Lettice
* Mary
* Hugh
* Thomas
* Hatton
* Frances

What was your motivation for this little project?

Welcome. We could never know for sure, but if you have any reason to come up with that birth order, I think it should fit.

No motivation in special. That would be curiosity. I've often been on Geni and saw that on Wikipedia, so I felt like checking the family tree on Geni, just curious. When I saw the missing profiles, felt like something should be done about it.

Here is why I guess that birth order:

* Of all of the children, Robert is the one with the earliest reported date of birth (1584), so I start with him. He was born when his mother was 22 years old - a bit late for a couple's first child in that era, but not unheard of.

* Lettice and Mary reported dates of birth (circa 1585) are next. Since their dates of birth appear to be so close behind Robert's, I guess that they came next. Lettice is typically mentioned before Mary in discussion, so I place Lettice ahead of Mary.

* Hugh's reported date of birth (1591) is next, so I place him after Mary.

* Frances' reported date of birth (1600). Her mother was about 38 years old at the time of Frances' birth, so it seems likely that Frances was the last child that she bore and thus I place her at the end.

* Dates of death are not reported for Thomas and Hatton. Seeing a nine-year gap between the births of Hugh and Frances, it is my guess that Thomas and Hatton were born in that gap and thus I insert them between Hugh and Frances. Thomas is typically mentioned before Hatton in discussion, so I place him ahead of Hatton.

Actually, it was I who gave Lettice and Mary's birthdate as circa 1585. This date was based on the painting's date (believed to be on some year between 1600 and 1610), in which they've just married and had their first kids; so I figured that they were around 20 years old on 1605. Also, Thomas actually is refered on Wikipedia as the couple's third son, just like you guessed.

So anyhow, that birth order seems quite fair. Thanks!