Sir Thomas Hankyns - Authenticity of Syr Thomas Hankyns Vicar of Dymmocke.

Possibly the Vicar was his uncle. 15th century families were not at all imaginative in naming their children - the same half-dozen names recur over and over again.

What can definitely be said is that the Hankins family resided in Dymock, Gloucestershire, at least as far back as the middle 15th century and probably much farther. (I did a bit of spot-checking.)

One other thing: there is no Hankins (in any possible spelling) found in Shaw's "The Knights of England", and only a Thomas P. Hankin in 1822.

A Thomas Dymock was knighted in 1460, but that's a different and much more prominent family from the same area.

Admittedly, the records are sketchier the farther back you go, but by the beginning of the 16th century the Tudors had the privilege firmly in their own hands, and those so dubbed were more likely than not to be recorded.

When I find the time I am going to see what the Gloucestershire archives have to offer.

Excellent idea!

Hi. Has anyone in this thread been able to solve the mystery of Thomas Hankins (my 13th GGF)?

I would really love to know any personal history of the Hankins' (Hankyns') in Dymock.

Especially, how Thomas landed Lady Anne Hungerford. Talk about marrying above your state.

Thanks,
Charley Hankins

Just found this source, which is new to me, but may not be to some:

https://archive.org/details/encyclopaedialon91811lond/page/779/mode...

"The family of Hankins has resided at the Greenhouse for at least three centuries, and has regular pedigree from Sir Thomas Hankyns, of the Greenhouse, vicar of Dymock, who was buried at Dimock..."

Knight and vicar is an unusual, but not unknown, combination. Some primary documentation (the above is merely secondary) would be even more helpful.

"Thomas Hankins, vicar 1482–1539, (fn. 1231) was to be Dymock's longest serving incumbent. He came from a local family as did John Cam, who by 1517 served as a curate or chaplain for a salary of £5. Both men faced charges of sexual incontinence and in 1526, because of ill health, Hankins was absolved for not attending the consistory court. (fn. 1232) Sir John Bridges (d. 1530) instructed his executors to make a marble tomb at his father Thomas's burial place by the high altar and to provide vestments and altar hangings decorated with his coat of arms."

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/glos/vol12/122-174

I believe this shows that the previous sources, dated 1810, would be correct in showing a coat of arms. And, I would assume that in 1810 they were likely to have access to original documents. If you do want confirmation on coats of arms, you can email the York Herald of Arms in Ordinary at the College of Arms.

I was able to find out about a family coat of arms for another ancestor this way.

Also, this is the description of the Greenhouse:

https://www.parksandgardens.org/places/greenway-house

Coat of arms =/= knighthood. All it means is that some ancestor did something impressive enough to deserve a grant of arms. The arms *can* be passed down to the eldest male heir (as long as there *are* any male heirs), but knighthood cannot.

I, too, would like to unravel this mystery. Was Thomas a Catholic and therefore charged with sexual incontinence as he was not supposed to have children (celibacy broken)? Was he a priest rather than a vicar? Was Lady Hungerford the mother of John or was it someone else? All the dates are really weird as already stated. I have tried to unravel all this but it is a real headache!