Mary Yate (Tattershall) - Mary or Elizabeth?

I also think Hunt is completely wet about Lyford having gone into "other hands" "as early as 1641", as there is no record of this in the VCH History of the County of Berkshire, v. 4, pp. 285-294 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol4/pp285-294

On the contrary, it seems that the Yate family held *several* properties in the parish in the 17th century, *including* Lyford. (VCH does miss that the John Yate who inherited from Thoms was his *grandson*, not son.)

Making a change like that without having a serious Discussion about it first is likely to cause trouble. But nobody wants to discuss it!

Having raised the question and heard no objections, I went ahead with the changes. Thomas Yate the senior now has two wives, Elizabeth Fauconer and Anne/Agnes NN, and all children are credited to Elizabeth. (Anne/Agnes wasn't married to him for more than a few years, after which he died and she became a Brigittine non, dying herself in 1580.)

Francis Yate also has two wives, Frances White of S.Warnborough (first wife, probably no children, d. 1569) and Jane Tichbourne (second wife, definitely mother of Thomas the younger, possible but unrecorded other children, was in residence when Edmund Campion was arrested in 1581, died before end of year 1582).
Note: Francis Yate was imprisoned in the Tower of London for "recusancy" from c. 1580 til he died in 1588, so Thomas and any other offspring must predate this period.

Tagging: Thomas Yeats Elizabeth Yeats Anne/Agnes Yeats Francis (the Recusant) Yate, Esq. Frances Yates Jane Yate Thomas Yate, Esq.

Hi Erica,

Nice to hear from you. As far as your working conclusions go, I don't necessarily disagree with any of them. However, I will strongly emphasize that the curatrix title given to Elizabeth in the 1658 probate record pretty much rules out her being a biological mother to the two younger Yate children, as there are other examples in the 17th century of the term being used for a non-biological mother and mostly legal guardian and spouse of the deceased.

Thanks for providing your insight into the matter.

-KM

-Mary Yate was only known as Mary and she was the wife of John Yate, Esq.
-she likely predeceased her husband, and he remarried to a woman called Elizabeth. So, we need an Elizabeth profile on Geni, to conform with the probate record
-there is no reason to think she was the mother of his children. The record has her as “curatrix” which is an appropriate role for a stepmother.
-there is no reason to think she was a White by birth, as they were recusants and Elizabeth explicitly was not.
-of interest would be the male guardians of underage Yate children.

Hi Erica,

One example of a curatrix in mid 18th century England, was when a woman named Mary Haydon was granted to be legal guardian of a minor granddaughter of the deceased grandfather. The citation below is from the Dorchester & Fordington Glossary
Index of Terms used in 17th & 18th Century Wills, Inventories and other Documents:

Curatrix is a legal term like executrix but meaning a guardian appointed by the court to look after the interests of a minor named as a main beneficiary in a deceased persons will.

Example: When William PADDOCH died and was buried at Holy Trinity church in Dorchester on 9th July 1756 his will appointed his wife Elizabeth as executrix. His widow, however, failed to administer his estate and when she died Letters of Administration were granted on 27th Jan 1766 to Mary HAYDON (widow of Richard) as curatrix or guardian of his granddaughter, Rachel PADDOCK, in her minority.

Note: Rachel PADDOCK was baptised at Holy Trinity Church Dorchester on 7th Nov 1759 so she was still only 7 years old at the time.

-KM

No male was ever named "curatRIX" - the "rix" ending explicitly specified "female".
A male would be "curatOR". Compare "Executor" (male), "Executrix" (female); "testator" (male), "testatrix" (female).

Hello! It was established here that George Yate (d. 1691) was the biological son of John Yate, Esq. (d. 1653) and his wife Mary Tattershall (died before 1653), not the non-recusant, Elizabeth _____ (died after 1658) who is alleged to be the second wife of John Yate, Esq.

Ok George Yates Gent my grandfather way back. How these changes affect him.

Billie

Oh new grandma will have to check her out lol

Billie

Erica,

You posted a link to the Will of Thomas Yate of Lyford, Berkshire, England, granted probate on 14 Jun 1659 here:

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000206374349830

Do you have a link for a readable transcription of the will?

Thanks.

Do we know if the additional probate material in the will of Thomas Yate actually contains the words mother and curatrix in referring to Elizabeth or just explicitly the word curatrix?

All that's turned up so far is the same link to a really dreadful Ancestry image which is almost completely illegible. Comments say Elizabeth is named as "curatrix" (not explicitly "mother") of Thomas Yate's grandchildren.

Visitations of Berkshire explicitly state that Mary Tattershall married John Yate of Lyford - and that pedigree was signed off on by her brother. Presumably he would know.

So this Elizabeth is presumably a second wife, stated under oath *not* to be a recusant, and the big fat probably unanswerable question is, when did Mary die and John Yate remarry?

John G. Hunt's speculations regarding relationship of Elizabeth nn to White of Hutton are untenable - ALL the Whites of Hutton were *ferocious* recusants, and the whole kit and kaboodle bugged out to France and thence to Rome in 1642.

Footnote for anyone not in the know - a "recusant" was an intransigent Catholic who wouldn't even pay lip service to the Church of England.

Looking at the probate material in the will of Thomas Yate one more time, it appears Elizabeth is referenced in Latin as "matri et curatrici" meaning "mother and curatrix." So, mother is explicitly written but in the Latin form.

I don't think anyone disputes the 1665 Visitation of Berkshire pedigree identifying Mary Tattershall as the wife of John Yate. Mary being a first wife is well established.

The issue with Elizabeth (presumed second wife) and her recusancy is not as straight forward as it might appear. Recusancy was not fixed in stone throughout someone's lifetime, especially after the English Reformation and just before, during, and after Cromwell's reign from 1653-1658. While someone could have been born into a recusant family and experienced extreme hardship and persecution, it was not uncommon for them to change to non-recusancy or their practicing religion later. This would assuredly be true when subjected to criminal penalties like imprisonment, land confiscation, and etc.

As with many individuals during the course of their lives after the English Reformation, an English recusant could relatively easily change their recusancy and be telling the truth before a Committee for Compounding. Elizabeth, widow of John Yate, could have been in a recusant family and a Catholic when she married John and then after his death became a non-recusant. It was not unheard of during this time period. The Committe for Compounding was sequestering the estate that was granted to her by her deceased husband.

John G. Hunt never made any speculations about the White family of Hutton Hall, co. Essex. Hunt made an unrelated claim about George Yate’s relationship to the White family of Swanborne (South Warnboroug, Hants). This was an erroneous association because George did not descend from the marriage of Thomas Yate (died 1565) and his second wife, Frances White of Swanborne.

Lastly, some of the children of Richard White and Catherine Weston of Hutton Hall, Essex did return to England in the latter half of 17th century, where they may not have been recusants at that point. Frances White, the alleged (and incorrectly identified) wife of Richard Wells and daughter of Richard White and Catherine Weston returned to England after being in France and Italy to marry John Petre.

So for a woman like Elizabeth who was a recusant when she married John Yate, could easily have become a non-recusant upon his death due to the extreme hardships and penalties assessed to recusants who stayed in England or returned after fleeing.

It's also possible that John Yate decided to play the "lip service" game and at least pretend to care about the Church of England (i.e. show up in church a couple of times a year), for any of a number of reasons, including making it easier to get back the family's confiscated lands. His second wife may have been paying "lip service" also, or he may have run out of available Catholic mates and had to settle for whoever he could get. As long as we have no idea who Elizabeth really was (and no, I DON'T think she was a White of Hutton!), pretty much anything goes.

I don’t think it makes any sense to say that John Yate, Esq. settled for any woman he could get given the relationship between George Yate and Jerome White through the second wife of John! George Yate’s close blood relationship to Jerome White is not through John Yate or any of his ancestors, but through John’s second wife, Elizabeth! I’m sorry, Maven, but that is an established fact!!! Whether you like it or not!

Erica, just one quote you mentioned that I want to reply to. You quoted directly from someone at WikiTree who posted the following,

“Some records refer to John Yate's son George Yate as "cousin" of Jerome White of Maryland (see George's profile). "Cousin" in this period could cover a wide range of relationships, not all by blood, and it is not clear what the relationship was between Jerome and George Yate. in his blog posts already cited, surmises that they were uncle and nephew (nephews were quite often referred to as cousins at this time), but there is no hard evidence for this.”

I wouldn’t credit WkiTree with anything, as profiles can be updated by certain people with varying agendas and personal vendettas on that site. Pre-pandemic (c. 2019) there was one very good genealogist (with an MS in History) on the Magna Carta Project who was doing a great job with profiles. Unfortunately, he got into a dispute with one or two other members on that project team and they ousted him from WikiTree because of their dispute. After a couple years it was proven that the genealogist who was ousted was actually correct in his analysis. There are definitely extreme biases over there, especially when they’re proven wrong and become hypocritical.

There aren’t multiple uses of the word cousin when a relationship can be carefully narrowed down by knowing the most probable kinship of the two involved where the word ‘cousin’ is used. Dr. Boles firmly shows this in his original research into the maternal ancestry of George Yate! ‘Cousin’ in the relationship between Jerome White and George Yate seems most likely to have conveyed an uncle-nephew relationship when considering all the other facts known about George's ancestry!

A select few of alleged experts at the Magna Carta Project at WikiTree, when called out and shown their mistaken analysis, will serve their own self-directed interests and say that cousin can mean anything under the sun. However, true professionals in genealogy say otherwise.
Below are some of the definitions of words in usage during 17th century colonial America. They are currently what true professionals at State Historical and Genealogical Associations use to define such terms as nephew and cousin.

From various State Historical and Genealogical Societies:

Nephew: The terms nephew and niece were not in common use in the colonies until before the mid-eighteenth century (i.e. 1750's). The term cousin was used to denote this relationship. In rare instances, the term "nephew" was used to mean grandson or granddaughter because the word comes from the Latin term for "grandson" or "nepos." During this early period, "nephew" was used for males and females.

Cousin: Very early in American History the term was used to refer to nephew or niece.

From the Index of Terms used in 17th & 18th Century Wills, Inventories and other Documents:

Cousin: A term formerly loosely used, and often meaning a nephew or niece. A cousin German is a first cousin, i.e. the child of an uncle or aunt. A cousin-once removed expresses the relationship between a person and his cousin's child or parent, the 'once removed' referring to a difference of one generation. Hence 'twice removed' indicates a difference of two generations, and so on. People who are 'second cousins' to each other are the children of first cousins".

So, Dr. Boles boiling down the relationship of George Yate and Jerome White with more precision concerning George's actual mother; seems to have rendered a more accurate definition and relationship of the word 'cousin' in George and Jerome's situation than what a WikiTree Magna Carta Project person has said!

Remember, there is a document cited in “The Land-Holder’s Assistant and Land-Office Guide,” p. 158 (1808). This document actually exists, no matter how much a WikiTree Magna Carta Project person wishes to say it doesn’t, where the document is transcribed instructing that land “be laid out by my cousin George Yate”. It was signed by Surveyor General Jerome White on 13 March 1666/7.

Lastly, Dr. Boles does provide many sources to back up what he states in his articles, contrary to the musings and blathering of one or two WikiTree Magna Carta Project people who could be anybody.

One blog is neither stronger nor weaker evidence than another blog - both are blogs and both need supporting evidence. All Boles has to support his Wild Mass Guess that "Elizabeth Yate" = Elizabeth White of Hutton is ASS-umptions, and we know what those make. The Wikitree blogger provides supporting evidence that they could not have been the same person (Elizabeth White of Hutton being 10 in 1640, per referenced Essex recusant rolls, categorically rules her out as a possible mother to a George Yate born somewhere BEFORE 1643/4, as he likely was).

It should further be noted that Jerome White, Surveyor, if he was indeed Jerome White of Hutton, would have been approximately the same age as George Yate. Uncle/nephew relationships with that little age difference have occurred but are relatively rare.

Cousins by marriage *are still cousins* - consider Ian Fleming and Sir Christopher Lee, who were step-cousins.

George Yate, Col. Henry Darnall, and Charles Calvert, 3rd Lord Baltimore can all be found in the same tangled family tree (George's relationship to the other two cousins is considerably more distant).

Question for further research: how carefully did English 17th century law distinguish between mothers and stepmothers, particularly when the latter were functioning in all respects as the former?

Dr. Boles does provide convincing analysis in his articles about the maternal ancestry of George Yate. Sure, not everything has been conclusively proven yet, but the circumstances and clear analysis does provide a strong case for Elizabeth, second wife of John Yate, Esq. as being the daughter of Richard White and Catherine Weston. And yes, the chronology does work out given the known facts at this time.

The WikiTree blogger does not provide any verifiable evidence except sweeping ASS-umptions to the contrary which aren’t backed up by anything but their wish to prove Dr. Boles wrong, which hasn’t been done yet by ANYONE!

There was no in-law relationship between George Yate and Jerome White. In another thread, I shared that on George’s paternal side, there was no close or no relationship at all to the White family of Hutton Hall, Essex, even going back seven generations and 200 hundred years. It just doesn’t exist on George’s paternal side of lineage. John G. Hunt got it all wrong concerning George’s paternal Yate and maternal Tattershall ancestry and many now are realizing that fact. You can’t have it both ways, Maven.

Where did you come up with Jerome White being exactly the same age as George Yate? Jerome White was the second born son of Richard White and Catherine Weston, born no later than 1635, as most estimates place his date of birth. He could have been born as early as 1630. George Yate could also have been born no later than 2 March 1643/4. Even if Jerome and George were born roughly a few years apart, that, in and of itself doesn’t negate the ‘cousin’ reference to George as anything other than nephew.

There is ZERO evidence stating that Elizabeth White was exactly 10 years of age in 1640. There is an Essex recusant list stating that Elizabeth is 10 and over when her older brother George is 12 and over. The list is not dated and has been estimated to be from 1640, it could have been from 1639, 1638. The 1634 Visitation of Essex does provide a clearer picture of George’s age as being born in 1627. All that has been stated by Dr. Boles is that Elizabeth White was born before 1630 with an earliest date of birth of August 1628, based on the current evidence available. If Elizabeth was born from August 1628 to February 1629, she would have been 15 years of age upon giving birth to George if he was born from August 1643 to February 1644. That is all a chronologically and biologically realistic scenario given the present evidence.

Furthermore, given the status of Jerome White and the fact that he was a justice on the Provincial Court of MD in 1664, Jerome would have appointed George to the court the moment he turned 21 years of age in March 1664/5. So, there are no problems at all with chronology or biology for the scenario of George Yate being the biological nephew of Jerome White, or Jerome White being the biological son of Richard White and Catherine Weston.

With your reference to stepmother and mother and what it really meant in the 1658 probate material of Thomas Yate; I seriously doubt that ‘matri’ in Latin translates directly to stepmother. The direct translation is mother which couldn’t be construed as anything else than biological mother.

What are you talking about with regards to George Yate, Col. Henry Darnall, and Charles Calvert, 3rd Lord Baltimore? There was no kinship whatsoever between the Yates, Darnells or the Calverts on any side of the families. There are no blood relationships at all, and no Maryland researcher as ever commented on any kinship between George Yate to the Darnalls, Calverts, or the like, especially where it relates to Jerome White and the Hutton Hall, Essex Whites.

It's not difficult at all to work out a path from George Yate to Charles Calvert, ***AS LONG AS*** you shift pages as you follow it. If you blindly stick to the same page and never leave it, you will never find it.

Pushpin path: Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore is George Yate, Gent.'s third cousin's husband.

George Yate, Gent. → John Yate, Esq. (his father) → Thomas Yate, Esq. (his father) → Jane Yate (Tichborne) (his mother) → Mary Tooke (Tichborne) (her sister) → Mary Tooke Darnall (her daughter) → Ralph Darnall (her son) → Mary Calvert (Darnall) (his daughter) → Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore (her husband)

Pushpin path #2: Col. Henry Darnall is George Yate, Gent.'s third cousin.

George Yate, Gent. → John Yate, Esq. (his father) → Thomas Yate, Esq. (his father) → Jane Yate (Tichborne) (his mother) → Mary Tooke (Tichborne) (her sister) → Mary Tooke Darnall (her daughter) → Philip Darnall (her son) → Col. Henry Darnall (his son)

Note that pushpin paths are always the shortest and most direct paths that the Geni algorithm can find. There may be others.

Calvert unquestionably knew Henry Darnall was his cousin, but Darnall's position as agent was more relevant to ongoing Colonial business (nevermind the obvious nepotism involved).

Whether either of them knew that George Yate was another and more distant cousin, they never said.

The Latin nominative of "mother" is "mater". "Matri(s)" is not nominative, but maybe genitive (of the mother) or dative (to the mother). Or it's dog-Latin, which would cast aspersions on the education of the scribe. (My Latin is rusty, but it's not *that* rusty.)

Since the only image of the probate document available to me is so hashed and worn down as to be almost completely illegible, I can say no more about it.

There s a Latin word for "stepmother", "noverca", but I do not know whether it was ever in wide usage. (I had to look it up.) The word is found, among other Latin terms for relationships, in Erasmus' "Colloquia", which puts it back to the early 16th century at least, but few people then or now were/are as erudite as Erasmus.