|
From: Fred Clark, 13th July, 2012
For Neil Jackson and Neil Gowar
As an amateur historian and genealogist, I have been working on a side of my family history which has been long forgotten or lost.
As of your voyage through highs and lows, mine has been 12 years long, and lots of progress has been made. It has been 7 months since I came across your site and the communal Quest which I found fascinating and quite mind blowing.
I live and originate from a similar family to those you have been investigating. I will state now I cannot release the name of person I believe to be Rev. John Vane's mother as it would cause an almighty ruckus as there are others, with greater invested interests than I, who would not take kindly to my findings.
All I can say there were strange family situations and events I`m sure you`ve come across which did not add up both in a historical context and in the social and fiscal boundaries of the time.
I have debated for months whether to get in touch, but I should soon be able to relay to you my historical and family evidence which I believe explains many of the travails you have come across with Rev. John Vane. In my opinion and from the evidence I have gleaned, his mother is from Durham, had strong links and access to Sir Henry Vane Tempest; and was at the centre of this major family disaster for the families considering the period and social status, ending up being treated appallingly.
On finding some of the comments on your website, they satisfied long held suspicions, behaviour and historical consequences for the families involved. I have been researching this line since and find nothing to dissuade me from believing my ancestor is the missing mother. The history of her family is at least as illustrious and humble as the other families which had known and interacted in the Durham and Newcastle areas for centuries in positions of great influence and power. Through fealty to one's king, mercantilism, fathers of industry and guilds and masonry, I believe my findings will at the least be held as a distinct candidate for your quest.
This is a strange e-mail, but from your site you have either given up or found your own candidate. I will send you the name of the lady and family and just say the story surrounding my family tree is as interesting as your findings. One detail I would ask, if I remember rightly, a fellow historian mentioned seeing through a window I believe. Some heraldry or coat of arms at the abode which John retired to, which was quite strange and not as of any of the other families?.
Am I right in saying that the shield looked as if it had 3 eagle like heads upon it ( probably black), with other heraldic symbols. My only hint would be to get a very good look at it and if possible let me know about it as it would seal the deal completely. By then I may be able to give you what I suspect. Sorry for the cloak and dagger and "this is not some sort of trolling", I have better things to do with my time. I just thought it may bring a little light to a fellow traveller who has come to a slight impasse in their journey.
Yours Fred
[This inquiry was forwarded to John Gowar and Neil Jackson - Ed]
|
|
From: Fred Clark, 19th July, 2012
John,
Congratulations upon your fantastic discovery. Also upon all your research and the audio and "power point" presentation web cast, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Unfortunately the lady Jane Lawson isn't the same one which the research "red flagged" in my family quest. Balancing up the two I`d say you have the best primary evidence and as you said, you must evaluate all documentary evidence and judge it as an unbiased individual within the context and circumstances of its creation, whilst treating it with a certain amount of scepticism.
I believe as of the time she was squirrelled away, you mention Wolsingham, I know it well - my cousin was a local Policeman in that area .
Obviously records are very difficult to find for the later 18th century, I assume you have the parish records of John Lawson's grandson being christened and were able to verify his existence.
I`m sure this an was arduous search. Vane Tempest seems to have been a catalyst of doom for all parties involved and from historical accounts the perfect bounder, to callously use people and his position, without remorse. I`m sure John was not alone in being of the Vane Blood Line, in fact I surmise also a female illegitimate child was produced amongst others. He was, all told, a bit of a nasty character, loving "wine, women and song" and happy to gamble massive amounts of his inheritance on the nod of a nag.
You mentioned John Vane was never to your knowledge party to the information of his maternal family. His situation must have been known in circles, hence whilst at school being handy with his fists was a required skill ?.
Again I hope you understand that I cannot disclose the Lady's name as yet, even though there are intriguing circumstances which could have pointed to her being John's mother.
It was a relief that his Aunt and Uncle took special interest in him, helping him through his career which was an illustrious one, living a life of a fellow who genuinely cared for his community and background.
I honestly feel the full evidence may never be known, but who knows. I`ll keep you up to date if any more evidence comes my way
Fred
|
From: John Gowar, 21st July, 2012
Thanks, Fred. I'm sorry Jane Lawson isn't your ancestor. I'll have to resume my search for what happened to her and her family.
Yes, the March 28th 1772 entry in the baptismal register for Wolsingham simply reads John son of Jane Lawson, born 11th Jan. I have copies of sworn affidavits from Jane's father and Michael Angelo Taylor that this entry refers to John Vane, then at Cambridge.
I share your bad opinion of Sir Henry Vane-Tempest. There are letters to his father kept in the Durham Record Office referring to his misbehaviour at Harrow, from which I suspect he was expelled, and at another school.
Good luck with your family history. If you do come across further information about the Vane or Lawson families, I'll be very grateful to hear about it.
From: Deborah Riley, 19th November, 2012
I have been trying to follow your blog re. parentage of John Vane, which I find intriguing.
I wonder if anyone contributing to the site might be able to help me solve an obliquely related research problem.
First, could anyone explain to me where Wrington is in relation to Bath-and was the reference, somewhere in the blog, to Henrietta, Countess of Bath referring to Longleat family?
I am researching Catherine Shepherd's relationship to Lord Bath, probably Henry Frederick, born 1797.
Catherine, born bet. 1793 and 1797, gave birth to his son, Frederick James Shepherd in ?1921, supposedly at Naish Hill Farm Lacock. She may have changed her birth surname. However, mother and son are both recorded as being born in Warminster. As in your story, I too would like to know how she was treated by the father and his family, after the birth of her son. There is some connection with Duchess of Cleveland as Catherine is recorded as being her companion at some stage-later she is recorded in 1841 and 1851 Warminster censuses as dressmaker and seamstress respectively.
Apparently ,her son FJS's grandsons: one named Henry Frederick were mistaken in Warminster for members of Bath family by members of their staff in later years. Catherine died on 25th Dec. 1860 and Elizabeth Cleveland on 31st Jan. 1861.
I have ordered the latter's will to see if she left any money to Catherine's son or granchildren as it seems likely that they may have come into some money around this time. Catherine was buried on 1st Jan 1861 close to the entrance gate of Christ Church Warminster, which seems quite surprising.
If anyone can come up with any helpful advice as to further research in this area of the country, I would be very grateful, as I live and work as a researcher in Scotland.
From: Neil Jackson, 20th November, 2012
Quick answer to "was the reference to Henrietta, Countess of Bath referring to Longleat family?" is 'no', sadly.
The Earldom of Bath has been created about 5 times, and fallen extinct after no more than about five generations maximum, each time. It's currently extinct again at the moment.
The confusion probably arises from the Marquessate of Bath - which *is* still in existence and has been held continually by the Thynne family of Longleat for ten generations and looks set to continue.
As far as I can tell, the reason that the 'Bath' title was split between various arms of the family is due to marriage and death, as always. The 1st Earl of Bath in its third creation (John Granville 1628–1701) had a daughter (Grace) who married Sir George Carteret, 2nd Baronet (1669-1695) who was created Baron Carteret in 1681.
John Granville's son and grandson inherited the Earl of Bath (3rd Creation) title and it became extinct in 1711.
Meanwhile his daughter Grace became elevated to Viscountess Carteret and Countess Granville. She and her husband (Lord Carteret) had a son John Carteret who became 2nd Earl Granville, 7th Seigneur of Sark. In turn, John Carteret had a daughter Louisa (d. 1736), who married Thomas Thynne, 2nd Viscount Weymouth (1710–1751) - from the line of Thynnes who had built Longleat House. Louisa Carteret & Thomas Thynne's eldest son in turn was Thomas Thynne, who was created 1st Marquess of Bath in 1789 (i.e AFTER the Earls of Bath, 3rd Creation, had become extinct in 1711).
Meanwhile, the Earldom of Bath had been created a fourth time, and given to William Pulteney (1684-1764). His son William (1731–1763) predeceased him, and thus never made it to 2nd Earl of Bath (he died as Viscount Pulteney). The Earldom of Bath thus became extinct again, a fourth time, in 1764 - still before Thomas Thynne had been made Marquess of Bath).
Finally, the Earldom of Bath was recreated one last time, for Henrietta Laura Pulteney (1766–1808), niece of William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath. She inherited (indirectly) all of William Pulteney's lands (including Wrington, Ubley, Bathwick in Bath, etc). Her mother had been a Pulteney by birth (her father Daniel Pulteney was first cousin to the 1st Earl of Bath, William Pulteney ). Her father, William Johnstone, was from the Scottish clan Johnstone (of Annandale), but he took the Pulteney surname for the family, when Frances Pulteney inherited the Pulteney estates in 1767 from William Pulteney's brother Harry. They secured the title Baroness of Bath for their daughter Henrietta in 1792, amidst some angst from peers at the time that there were now two 'Bath' titles in use at the same time, in different families (the Thynne 'Marquessate of Bath' having been created in 1789). But it still went ahead and was granted. Henrietta was elevated to 'Countess of Bath' in 1803. She died in 1808, and thus the Earldom of Bath became extinct for a fifth and last time. It remains so and is unlikely to be created again, unless the Thynne dynasty is raised to it, or they die out completely and the Marquessate of Bath becomes extinct.
So, that's the tale, and a convoluted one it is (as always!). Henrietta Countess of Bath is not related in any way (by our standards) to the Thynne line, but they did at one time both have titles 'of Bath', but at different ranks (the Marquessate of Bath outranks the Earldom of Bath). It happens rarely, but does occur, though peers clearly hate it when it does, usually because it means they can't grant the lower-ranking courtesy titles to their living heirs, later-born sons, etc!
Changing subject - if you do manage to get hold of Elizabeth Russell/Vane (Duchess of Cleveland)'s will, and have a digital copy, I'd be very interested to see it - if only to discover what elements of the vast Vane fortune remained with her until the time of her death! Being the second wife of William Harry Vane (1st Duke of Cleveland, 2nd creation), and much-denounced by his children from his first wife, it would be interesting to see what state they left her in!
From: Deborah Riley, 20th November, 2012
I forgot to say that an additional reason that I find it surprising that Catherine was buried on 1st Jan. 1861 at Christ Church Warminster is that she died in Tooting London on 25th Dec. 1860, where she was living with Frederick, his wife Mary Jane (Daniell) and their children.
Could anyone enlighten me: was it unusual and very costly to transport a coffin that distance at the end of 1860?
I have been trying to find information about the length of the journey by Great Western railway.
Frederick was described in 1851 Warminster Census as journeyman joiner, so perhaps that was a help! Shortly after the Census date the family moved to Kennington, London-an area belonging to Duchy of Cornwall, which may or may not be significant. Frederick was a partner of Musgrove and Shepherd, Builders and Developers- surprisingly modern terminology. Again, perhaps someone could advise? He was, also, an organ builder, and is supposed to have built one of the Warminster church organs.
I have quite a lot of peripheral information, which needs to be filtered for relevance.
From: John Gowar, 22nd November, 2012
There's really very little I can add to this except to say that William Poultney was created Earl of Bath, Viscount Pulteney of Wrington and Baron Pulteney of Hedon (in Yorkshire), all in one go, on 14 July 1742. And, as Neil says, with no surviving male heir, all these titles died with him. However, I think that Henrietta Laura was a first cousin twice removed to William Poultney (Earl of Bath), i.e., the granddaughter of his first cousin.
I did once write out how it was that the Wrington estate passed from William Poultney via Henrietta Laura to William Harry Vane and have added the note below. I'm sure it fully agrees with what Neil says. Only hope it makes sense!
Many thanks, Deborah for asking and Neil for answering so fully.
***********
May I start with Sir William Pulteney (Wm1), Leicestershire landowner and minor politician, born before 1647? He had two sons, William (Wm2) and John, and a daughter, Anne.
William (Wm2) became a colonel, died in 1715 and married Mary Floyd. They had two sons, William (Wm3) and Henry, who ended their lives living together in Bath House in Piccadilly.
William (Wm3) was a good scholar and a brilliant parliamentary speaker, who amassed a huge fortune (some in the South Sea Bubble) and became Earl of Bath. William (Wm3) married Anne Gumley and they had several children, including a son, William (Wm4). All predeceased him. He died in 1764, aged 80. Henry inherited a life interest in William’s (Wm3) estate, dying without issue in 1767.
Wm3 seems to have been created Earl of Bath, Viscount Pulteney of Wrington and Baron Pulteney of Hedon all in one go on 14 July 1742. The junior title presumably devolved to Wm4. All titles died with Wm3. It was Wm3 who purchased the Wrington (& Ubley?) estates from William Capel, 3rd Earl of Essex, in 1726, and who commissioned John Rocque’s plans of the Manor of Wrington.
John, Wm2’s brother, who died in 1726, married Lucy Colville and they had a son Daniel (~1684 – 1731), who was first cousin to Wm3 and Col. Henry.
Daniel married Margaret Titchborne. Only one of their children, Frances (~1728 - 1782), survived infancy and she came to inherit Wm3’s fortune.
Frances married the younger son of a Scottish landowning family from Dumfries, called William Johnstone. He took the name Pulteney (Wm5), was created a baronet in 1794 and died in 1805. He was an interesting fellow: it was he who built the bridge in Bath that carries the family name; he supported an early Bill to ban blood sports (which wouldn’t have endeared him to the Vane families); he came to own over a million acres south of Lake Ontario (leading to some interesting place-names in that part of New York State).
Frances and William (Wm5) had one daughter, Henrietta Laura (1766 – 1808), who (through her father’s influence [cash for peerages?]) was created Baroness of Bath in her own right in 1792 and Countess of Bath in 1803. She had married James Murray who became General the Rt. Hon. Sir James Murray-Pulteney and who died in 1811. As no children survived them, the titles lapsed and the Pulteney estates passed to the Vanes of Raby.
The sister of William (Wm2) and John Pulteney, Anne Pulteney (1663 – 1746), married Charles Fitzroy (1662 – 1730), who was an illegitimate son of Charles II and Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland. The surviving children of Charles and Anne were a daughter, Grace (1697 – 1763), and a son, William (1698 – 1774). Charles inherited the Dukedom of Cleveland, but William died without issue, so the title lapsed.
Grace married Henry Vane, 3rd Baron Barnard and 1st Earl of Cleveland, and so was the grandmother of William Harry Vane, 1st Duke of Cleveland of the second creation. Thus, the Pulteney estates and fortune passed to William Harry, finally becoming free of life interests and entailments in 1811.
JG
25 March 2007
From: Neil Jackson, 23rd November, 2012
On 22/11/2012 21:15, JOHN GOWAR wrote:
> There's really very little I can add to this except to say that William Poultney was
> created Earl of Bath, Viscount Pulteney of
> Wrington and Baron Pulteney of Hedon (in Yorkshire), all in one go, on 14 July 1742.
Agreed - though possibly by that time he (Wm3) was using the standardised form of 'Pulteney' generally - though of course journals of the time still have 'Poultney', and 'Pultney' variously in use. Fairly certain Wm1 (his grandfather) used 'Poultney', though.
> And, as Neil says, with no surviving male heir, all these titles died with him.
> However, I think that Henrietta Laura was a first
> cousin twice removed to William Poultney (Earl of Bath), i.e., the granddaughter of
> his first cousin.
Agreed. Frances Pulteney (dau of Daniel P, g.dau of John P) was Wm3's cousin-once-removed. Henrietta Laura was twice removed.
> I did once write out how it was that the Wrington estate passed from William Poultney > via Henrietta Laura to William Harry
> Vane and have > added the note below. I'm sure it fully agrees with what Neil > says. > Only hope it makes sense!
It does, and it tallies pretty exactly. I've got other scratchy notes that might be of interest on my Fitzroy-Vane-Pulteney family tree at: <http://techno.demon.co.uk/Fitzroy-Vane-Pulteney> but John's pedigree is correct.
From: John Gowar, 23rd November, 2012
Thanks, Neil.
Sorry about my "Earl of Cleveland" error. Especially as the Bell Inn on Redhill (200 yds from my house) was renamed the Darlington Arms shortly afterwards and still is.
I found in the Shropshire archives a transcript of the Appellants' case in the House of Lords hearing of Pulteney v. Darlington (1793). Can't really understand what it's all about but it confirms many of the land transactions, including the purchase of the manors of Wrington, Ubley and Bathwick for £35,000. I don't think there's any coal in Wrington or Ubley, though. I often wonder why the Capels sold and why William Pulteney bought these estates.
|
