Elizabeth Norton (Tempest) - Elizabeth Norton (Tempest) has ancestor problems

Stirnet gets it from JW Clay's Dugdale, Volume 2 of 3 page 72, IV

https://archive.org/stream/dugdalesvisitati02dugd_0#page/72/

Note this material is all added by Clay - only the bits in italics are actually from Dugdale's Visitation.

Clay says Richard Norton's wife was a daughter of John Tempest, citing "Glover 156, 319". But this is a slip by Clay - he means William, not John. In fact John isn't mentioned by "Glover" at all.

"Glover" is Clay's way of citing Foster's Yorkshire Visitations (1875), which contains Glover's Visitation of 1584/5 and Richard St George's Visitation of 1612, combined.

Mallory chart, page 156

https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-hssl_visitation-yorkshire...

(Isabel is in italics to say she isn't in the copy of Glover, but has been added in by Foster from another source)

Tempest chart, page 319

https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-hssl_visitation-yorkshire...

Glover says Richard married ___ and had Piers (wrong) and William. William married ____ and had two co-heiresses who married Mallory and Norton. That;s all Glover knew. Several additions by Foster.

So Elizabeth is actually the same person as Isabel Norton

For better Tempest pedigrees start here

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/ebt/index.shtml

Eleanor quotes deeds stating the parents of Isabel Norton explicitly.

Sir Richard married (1) Joan Hartforth (2) Isabel _____

By the 1st wife he had a son and heir Sir Richard jr, who has a son and heir Sir Richard III. The Margaret Stainforth debate is about Sir Richard III.

That leaves the question of Isabel...

No scratch that. Sir Richard jr was the nephew of Sir Richard I (who was himself a younger son, so not the heir of Bracewell).

Eleanor Blanche Tempest (Volume 1 page 45) says Isabel was

"daughter and heir of Sir Thomas de Bourne of Stanford Ryvers, co. Essex, knt, by Isabel, daughter and heir of Sir John le Gras of Studley co. York and Trefford co. Dur. knt, by his wife Paulina (see below). She has wrongly been described as "daughter of Sir Hugh Cliderhowe by Isabel le Gras" etc. (Surtees' Hist. of Durham, vol. 3, p.326 etc.)"

Lawsuits are quoted to support this.

Surtees calls Norton's wife Elizabeth here

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/antiquities-durham/vol2/pp40-49

The Surtees reference given by EBT isn't quite right, it's Volume 2 not 3

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/antiquities-durham/vol2/pp303-360...

She's Isabel here, but she's incorrectly shown as a daughter of William junior.

As for Sir William's mother Isabel, Surtees gives two versions. He's probably getting this from collections of old pedigrees compiled by guesswork. In his day, people had a lot of faith in the old pedigrees, because they had no access to most primary sources. Both versions look dodgy, as we know Sir John le Gras left a sole heiress who married Sir Thomas de Bourne.

Scratch what I said about Margaret Stainforth. This is where my head is going to start hurting.

My head hurts also. Too many people with the same name.
Did you realize that the Isabel Tempest (1387 - 20 Sep 1438) married Richard Norton, and his great-grand parents were a Richard Norton and an Elizabeth Tempest (1287- 20 Sep 1338)
The names being similar, and the dates being the same, except for being a century apart, look suspicious.

Does look like somebody just filling up the boxes.

Same with that Elizabeth's parents. Richard Tempest married Joan de Hartford in 1342. We don't have her in the proper place yet, but when we do, we'll have another case of history repeating itself.

False alarm about the wives.

Sir John Tempest of Bracewell had a younger brother Sir Richard who married (1) Joan Hartforth, without issue (2) Isabel de Bourne, daughter and heiress of Isabel le Gras, heiress of Studley. Bracewell and Studley were never in the same hands.

Meanwhile back at the ranch Sir John had a son and heir Richard whose son and heir Richard (d abt 1428-30) married Margaret, probably Stainforth. Somebody said he married Isabel le Gras, and the mistake has refused to die down, that's all.

The Terry Booth posting turned out to be a false alarm as well, so all looks serene now. It probably won't last, as there are a lot of bad pedigrees out there.