William (John) Marshall

Definitely want to know the truth. Please keep me informed.

Hi Norvelle,

I do not know what your involvement in this is. However, I'm sure that you are keen to ensure that geni is as accurate as can be. Whilst I am looking principally at the Marshall of Pickering family at the moment and have significant additional outline trees ready to add re. Thorpes, Brus and Mowbrays, etcc., I am aware that the current line through the Marshall family in Hingham, ie: the Marshalls, who married Lamplughs, Harringtons, etc. concludes with William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, through his son Walter. I have raised this matter with Tammy a couple of times. It is an area of considerable concern to me.

As you may know, the Earl of Pembroke is a major historical figure. As such, there is a considerable amount of information available about the Earl and his immediate family. All standard historical records agree that the Earl's son, Walter, died without issue. Therefore, I must ask, and geni must ask as well, how we have Walter as the link between the Hingham Marshalls and the Earl. This cannot be right unless someone has come up with a sourced record that will change history. These links cannot be made without specific evidence.

I will also add that you have other family lines on geni, which indicate that the Hingham Marshalls origins lay with John, the Earl Marshall's brother. I have no idea, whether anyone has compared these two lines.
As mentioned, I have not looked in depth at the line from the Marshalls in Pickering through the Hingham Marshalls to Walter, but I do know that there is no sourced evidence specifically linking the Pickering Marshalls through the William who married Agnes to the Hingham family. The link was previously based on George Marshall's 'Marshalls of Pickering' which was compiled in the late 19th century, much of which has proved to be wildly inaccurate on close examination, ie: checking original sources. Given that both ends of the line appear spurious, ie Walter at one end and the Marshalls in Pickering at the other, it begs the question as to the accuracy of everything in between, particularly as those who have compiled this line have failed to provide few, if any, sources on the profiles. As mentioned, there is a parallel Marshall family in Hingham on geni, which looks a lot better researched. Anyway, in conclusion, a brief check on Walter having no issue will, I hope, convince you that this link to William Marshal, the Earl of Pembroke, should be undone and, hopefully, someone will look at this entire line. As mentioned, I am keen, once we have removed the current links of the William Marshall at Pickering to the Hingham Marshalls to rebuild his family line. In doing so, I will ensure that we incorporate sources, etc onto the profiles. It may be the case that the Pickering Marshalls may be related to the Hingham Marshalls, just not at the point currently shown on geni.

As mentioned, I am quite happy for anyone to prove me wrong in any respect to the issues raised, but any such proof must be evidence and source based.

Richard

Here are a few references on the Marshall family

THE YORKSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rgcVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=...
Pg.86 - 111

Miscellanea Marescalliana, genealogical notes on the surname of Marshall By George William Marshall Vol. I.
https://books.google.com/books?id=M1kBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=P...

Miscellanea Marescalliana : being genealogical notes on the surname of Marshall (1883) Vol. II.
https://archive.org/details/miscellaneamares02mars

Lincolnshire pedigrees (1902) Vol. 2
https://archive.org/details/lincolnshirepedi02madd
https://archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi02madd#page/539/mode/1up
Marshall of Theddlethorpe Pg.646 - 651

The visitations of the county of Nottingham in the years 1569and 1614 : with many other descents of the same county (1871)
https://archive.org/details/visitationscoun03britgoog
https://archive.org/stream/visitationscoun03britgoog#page/n179/mode...
Pg.166
Marshall. Pg.166-167

5. Adam de Thorp. Married, before 1372, Katherine _______. 'Thos. Symound, vicar of Thorp, John de Fenton, chaplain; to Adam, son of Wm. de Thorp, and wife Katherine, in tail manor of Thorpe and appurtenances there and in Stoke, Eyleston and Newerk.'[K] 'Adam de Thorp to make sufficient estate to Henry Lescropp of lands in Yorks which belonged to Wm. Lescropp. Henry Lescropp to make estate for life to Adam of £22 p.a. land and rent in Muskham and Carleton. Given at York, 4 March' 46 Edw III (1372) [L]. Possibly the same Adam de Thorp shown on a 1379 Subsidy Roll for the Yorkshire parish of Ripon: 'MARKETTESTEED IN RYPON: Adam de Thorp & vxor ejus iiij.d.'[M] Dead by 1400; Katherine ______ was living in 1400. 'Katherine widow of Adam Thorp to Hugh de Thorp her son, manor etc. as above'.[N]
6. Ellen Thorp, who married John Marshall.[O]
7. William Marshall of Carleton, Notts., who married Catherine Leeke[P]
8. John Marshall of Carleton, who married Elizabeth Bingham.[Q]
9. Agnes Marshall, who married Lawrence Hatfield[R] (fl. 1456) [S]
10.Agnes Hatfield, who married Thomas Cranmer of Aslacton [T]
11.Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Archdeacon Edmund Cranmer, & others. [U]
Since the Visitations state that the grandson of Adam Thorp is stated to have married a Leek, it may also be noteworthy that the document referenced in 1372 [K] and another grant made by Adam's son in 1401 [V] were witnessed by Simon de Leek and Sir John Leek respectively. The documents mentioning Adam de Thorp associate him with Carleton and Muskham, precisely the places that the visitations mention in connection with the Marshall family. (This Marshall family's origins are another matter. Their pedigree displays an apparently flawed descent from the Brus family, though the Bruse [sic] quarter of their arms is in fact suggestive of a younger son's differenced coat.)
Sources:
[A] DD/FJ/1/36/2 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[B] DD/FJ/1/36/3 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[C] DD/FJ/1/22/5 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[D] DD/FJ/1/36/4 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[E] DDCC/111/6 (East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service)
[F] SpSt/4/11/119/3 (West Yorkshire Archive Service, Bradford)
[G] C 143/286/8 (National Archives, Kew)
[H] C 143/225/21 (National Archives, Kew)
[I] DD/FJ/1/36/5 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[J] C 143/298/12 (National Archives, Kew)
[K] DD/FJ/1/36/6 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[L] DD/FJ/1/21/1 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[M] www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/ YKS/Misc/SubsidyRolls/WRY/Ripon.html
[N] DD/FJ/1/36/7 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
[O] Marshall Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 166
[P] Marshall Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 166
[Q] Marshall Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 166
[R] Marshall Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 166
[S] 'Norwell', Transactions of the Thoroton Society, 35 (1930);
Published online at
http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/articles/blagg1930/norwell1.htm
[T] Cranmer Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 70
[U] Cranmer Pedigree, Visitations of Nottingham 1569 & 1614, P. 71
[V] DD/FJ/1/36/9 (Nottinghamshire Archives)
From: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.medieval/...

A family of Brus was settled in Pickering in the 14th century. John Marshall, ancestor of an old Pickering family, married Maud eldest daughter and co-heir of a William Brus. (fn. 165) He being seised among other lands of the 'manor of Eastgate alias Estgait Hall' and land called Bruisegate in Pickering made his will in 1446. (fn. 166) Robert, the son of John Marshall and his wife Maud, was followed by William Marshall, who in 1476 held a burgage formerly owned by William Brus, (fn. 167) and in 1559 Richard Marshall and Agnes his wife conveyed their 'manor' of Pickering to Richard Walker. (fn. 168) No further history of this holding has been found.
From: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/yorks/north/vol2/pp461-476

The Gentleman's Magazine, Volume 218
https://books.google.com/books?id=nkpDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA484&lpg...
Pg.482 - 488

The Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, for the Year ..., Volume 216
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-oIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA784&lpg...
*Pg.781 - 785

http://www.geni.com/path/Ian-Winton+is+related+to+William-Marshall?...

While following this discussion, "William (John) Marshall" has gone from being my GGF to a 4th cousin X removed.
Meanwhile, John Marshall (1460) of Lincolnshire is my 14th GGF and I am wondering how this branch lines up with (now) William's?

Hi Linda,

This is an area which is still subject to research. Much of what people have believed about the Marshall family in Pickering has come from the Victorian genealogist, George Marshall. Unfortunately, when investigated in any depth, his facts, his evidence and conclusions often fall apart. I could give you any number of examples. However, parts of the family have been recently investigated by other genealogists, in particular, John Watson (see Brus of Pickering on google). and his conclusions, in particular in regard to the links between the Marshall and Brus families show George Marshall to be wholly wrong. In particular,George Marshall names John Marshall as having married Maud Brus. Maud never married a Marshall. She married at Robert Brown and it was her daughter Agnes (as shown on the Nottingham Visitation), who married into the Marshall family and she married a William, not John Marshall.

I believe that George Marshall may have been so keen to establish a link with the Empringham Marshalls that he failed to critically examine his sources. Indeed, take away George Marshall's 19th century family tree, and there is nothing contemporary to firmly link the Marshalls of Pickering with the Marshalls of Empringham.

Indeed, there is nothing conclusive to confirm exactly who William's forebears were. There is much to suggest that he is linked with the Carlton Marshalls and may be descended from Adam Thorpe, etc.

However, it is not as simple as that, the Bulmer Wapentake of which Pickering was only a part was home to a number of Marshalls. Indeed, there was a John Marshall and Christopher Marshall who were both Lord Mayors of York and were contemporaries of William Marshall. Both of these figures would have been important figures and known to William. Indeed, one of William's children, Thomas went on to become a York Lord Mayor himself. However, the John Marshall who became a Mayor was a Merchant. Equally, in Beverley, the Marshalls living there appear to be Merchants, not landed gentry.

My own view with William Marshall is that the line to Empringham should be disconnected until it is clear who his ancestors were. As mentioned, this link was made by George Marshall, and he is not to be trusted.

On the positive side, we have clear lines of descent through William's wife Agnes to the Brus family, the Mowbrays and others. We have yet to enter these details on geni, but there is a great deal to be entered and it should at least offset the disappointment with losing, for the time being, the Marshall line.

I would also add, and I get fed up saying this, that the Empringham Marshalls on geni have their descent to the famous William Marshall (Earl of Pembroke) through his son, Walter. William Marshall is a major historical figure and every historian who has written about William states that his son, Walter, died without issue.

In general, one of the reasons why I got this discussion going was that I was inviting other users to offer evidence re. the Marshall family as a whole. With the notable exceptions of Carole Pomeroy and Tammy Swingler (both curators), the silence has been deafening.. It is unfortunate that so many users just take for granted family trees put together on google or elsewhere without actually checking out the sources themselves. I'm sorry that your link has been changed but until such a time as contemporary evidence is provided to the contrary then that's the way it must be. It is so easy to make unfounded connections and I think that has been the problem all along with this family. I can assure you that I would very much welcome such evidence. We need to get this right, surely.

Richard

I am entirely sympathetic, as I am dealing with a similar situation in my paternal line. Someone has "substituted" an entirely unrelated man as my 9th ggf (same last name - no connection) in my profiles. I am working with a curator to try to get this fixed. I believe that their motivation is that my grandmother's line goes back to Charlemagne.
In the long view, I think the aggravation is tolerable, as Geni has greatly enhanced my own research. You're right about source checking, though!
Will look forward to additional information from you
-Linda

Great to see a discussion at this level. As Richard says, there are numerous vanity genealogies from the Victorian era and they have influenced the hundreds of incorrect family trees for some families out on the Internet.

Whatever region and era you are researching, you need to look for the most reliable and documented sources and compare various sources. There are a lot of area experts here and you can always start a discussion around a profile and get intelligent discussions like this one.

I am constantly cutting off my own links when I detach bad parents from the first generation of immigrants to pre-Revolutionary America. Why would I want an untrue link to some noble family??

Richard, you aroused my curiousity so I went back to the William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke & checked the lineage with a few of my "favorite" ancestors. The 1st person listed is a ggp, followed by the child they descended through, followed by the relationship.

Pamela Bullock --> Isabel Marshall. 18thgg
Daniel Hall --> Sibyl Marshall 19th gg
Peter Ward --> Eva Marshall 14th gg
Bertha Poff --> " " 23rd gg
William Spencer --> Eva Marshall 12th gg
" Brewster --> Joan Marshall 12th gg
Agnes Harris --> Joan Marshall 12th gg
Joseph Covey --> " " 18th gg

I should have checked the birthdate of the Wm. Marshal you are discussing, earlier. But, even in this line where he became a cousin, the 1st Earl is my ggf through Joan. Too many relatives & I'm too easily confused! Thank you, though - this was a useful exercise!

This post is for curators and any else who may be involved with the Marshall (Empringham/Emrpingham of Norfolk line. I have already raised concerns, but the more I investigate the worse this line gets. It's almost total rubbish from beginning to end and really should be the subject of a major revision and for some it should be disconnected altogether.

I certainly want to disconnect the Marshalls of Pickering from the line.

The line Hingham/Empringham line currently concludes with Walter Marshall, son of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. As mentioned, on many occasions and, as yet, no one, including curators, has responded, all historic records state that Walter died without issue. That means he had no children.

It gets worse, historical records indicate that the first Baron of Hingham was a John Marshall and he was a nephew of the Earl, ie: There was no direct link to the great Earl. Albeit, they were closely related.

It would appear that there was a John Marshall of Hingham born circa 1170. He had a son, William Marshall, born circa 1214, who married an Elizabeth Ferrers. He had a son, another John Marshall, born circa 1240 (not 1262 as shown on geni) who married Hawise de Saye.

He had a son, William (born circa 1270), who married a Christina Fitzwalter. (On geni, William is shown as being named Roger - no such person. Roger, not William, is the one shown on geni as being the one who married Chrisitian (unnamed).

I could go on, but this line is an utter shambles. What is worse is that all this information (and more) is readily available. If there is anyone there who wishes to engage in debate about this I would be more than happy to discuss it. Indeed, welcome it, but I am putting this to the curators and anyone in authority with geni., as these problems need to be addressed. It brings geni into disrepute on google when the information it gives about these families is so very wrong. Not only that, those merging with these lines area getting a completely wrong idea about their ancestry.

Richard

PS. For Linda Wellman. Without me having any idea where any of your Marshalls sand on the Marshall family tree, I can't possibly comment. However, I would be curious as to where your Joan Marshall stands on the tree. You may well be right in saying she is descended from the great Earl. There again as outlined above, a quick check might show a specific tree to be utterly misleading.

Hi all, Just an addendum to the above re. the first John Marshall of Hingham. It would appear that he took over the Hingham esates, etc. in circa 1202. I attach document, which gives information abut this gentleman, including the news that he married one, Isobel, the daughter of Richard Strongbow. Richard, as many may know was a famous man in his own right and was instrumental in Anglo Normal invasion of Ireland.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eA4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA336&l...

Richard

I apologise for the spelling mistakes above. Should have checked before posting. The web address quoted above does not seem to have been sent in full by geni. However, when the siste appears you will see a number (page 336) in the top left hand corner. It's in blue. Just key on that number and all the details I mentioned will appear.

Yours

Richard

Hi all,

Further to the above, there is an ebook available to read in regard to. the early Marshalls of Hingham which should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in this line:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dy8YAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA433&l...

I'm still getting my head round it all, but there is much to mull over, including the fact that in 1325 Hawise Marshall, the sole heir of John Marshall married a Robert de Morley, effectively handing over the Hingham Marshall estates to that family. I should add that not only geni is amiss for poor research in this area, but there is an ample evidence of other ambiguous trees scattered around the web.

Richard

As in previous posts, the previous web address is not complete, When you access the site, you will see a blue (Page 433) at top left. You can access the full document there.

Richard

All daughters of Wm. Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke (as his sons died without issue).
Joan m. Warine Munchesney
Sibyl m. Wm. De Ferrers, 5th Earl of Derby
Isabel m. Richard de Clare
Eva m. Wm. De Braose

&, I left out Maud, who is my 22nd gg thru 1st husband, Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of York (thru their daughter, Isabel FitzGeoffrey) &, also, my 22nd gg thru her 2nd husband, Wm. (Plantagenet) de Warenne (thru their son, John de Warenne.
I have sourced these thru everything available online, so please let me know if there is a disputed area.
Thank you!

Hi Linda, I'm glad that you do not refer to any of the Marshall of Hingham re. your connection to William Earl of Pembroke. As such, we'll leave it at that, as it's the Hingham/Empringham line that causes me concern.

I do hope that other readers of this discussion will note your comment about William Marshall's sons "dying without issue". You are absolutely right about this Unfortunately, the Hingham line on geni merges with William Marshall through his son, Walter. I can't seem to get anyone to acknowledge that this is impossible. The whole Hingham line on geni is an utter mess. It is a poor reflection on geni that they are not responding to my concerns.

Yours

Further looking to confirm the parentage of the William Marshall of Aislaby Grange (Pickering) who married Agnes Brown, daughter of Robert Brown and Maud Brus (circa 1450). He had been previously placed on the Empringham and Hingham line which proved unreliable. There is clear evidence that he may have been related to the Carlton Marshalls (see Nottingham Visitation. However, there is also the possibility that he could have been related to the Marshalls who were Lord Mayors of York. I have now come up with a fourth option raised by the fact that the Carrigonon Marshalls who laid claim to be descended from the Pickering Marshalls, also stated that their Marshall family had origins in Tadcaster. I have subsequently found evidence of a William Marshall, who lived in Tadcaster. The followi9ng document has two entries for William, one in 1404 and the other in 1408. Whilst this William is probably too early to be the William, who married Agnes, he could be a potential father of that William:

"1404, for example, I find William Marshall, of Tadcaster, was paid
6s. 2d. by the Chapter of York for 20 iron wedges for service in the quarries, probably at Thevedale. It may be noted that there is no suggestion of a castle or manor-house existing at Tadcaster at this
era.
The disaster of 1314, it has been said, put back the dial-hand of civilisation fully two centuries, and during the whole of this period, and even longer, the annals of Tadcaster are full of the records of war and alarm, poverty and heavy taxation. It was hardly possible to obtain more than the barest existence, so constant and oppressive were the levies made upon the people during this long and troubled era. Contrasting life at that time with events at present, well may the English people rejoice at the wise counsels that have prevailed during the era of our late Sovereign Lady Victoria, the close of whose glorious reign found them in a condition of security and comfort never equalled in the nation’s history.
The close of the 14th century found Tadcaster again plunged in the excitement caused by the downfall of Richard II. The Bloody Assize, following the rebellions of Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, was scarcely over, when the ill-starred King was thrown into Pontefract Castle, and there, in the language of Shakespeare, he was “hacked to death.” Henry of Lancaster had landed in Yorkshire, and from Ravenspur, he reached London at the head of 6o,ooo men. The Earl Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, who was lord of Wighill, near Tadcaster, together with Archbishop Scrope, raised a rebellion in 1405, but through the strategy of the Earl of Westmorland, they were taken prisoners, and both soon afterwards were beheaded at York. The execution of these nobles created much ferment. Never before had an English prelate died by the axe of the public headsman. Hot with rage the Earl of Northumberland, old Henry Percy, mustered what men he could, and donning them in his livery marched through Wetherby to Tadcaster, where he added to his ranks, and thence on to Bramham Moor. Here he was met by the King’s troops in command of the High Sheriff, Sir Thos. Rokeby, when a sharp battle followed, and the Earl was slain, 19th February,1408. His lands were all confiscated, together with those of at least one of his Tadcaster tenants, who had joined the Earl on his last march. The following particulars relating to this disaster have not before been printed
ATTAINDER OF ROBERT ESYNGWOLD, OF LANDS IN TADCASTER, 1408.
INQUISITION indented taken ex officio at Tadcaster xxvii. day of the month of ffebruary the eighth year of the reign of King Henry the fourth after the conquest (1408) before Thomas Egmanton Escheator of the lord King in the county of York. By the oath of Robert Dryffeld of Tadcaster, William Parson of the same, William Skelton, William Marshall, Richard Ednel, John Colingham, John Warde, William Walker, John Wryglye, John Bolton, John Warde, junr., and William Banaster, jurors, who present that Robert Esyngwold traitor was in arms against the lord King and his allegiance in company of Sir Henry Percy late Earl of Northumberland the viijth day of the month of May the sixth year of the reign of the Kiug above-said in the County of Northumberland and afterward the said Robert about the feast of St. John Baptist the sixth year of the said King was an adherent of the Scots enemies of the lord King against his allegeance which said Robert Esyngwold was seized on the day aforesaid on which he as a traitor rebelled against his King"

Doesn't get easier!!

Richard Chapman