Thursday, October 25, 2012
Question from Amanda - Catherine Fiennes, possible daughter of Thomas Fiennes
I was looking into my family's genealogy recently and came across the name Catherine Fiennes. She was apparently a granddaughter of Sir John Fiennes (1447-1484) and Alice Fitzhugh (1448-1516), an ancestor of Catherine Parr. According to the genealogy book I have, Sir John Fiennes and Alice Fitzhugh had a son named Thomas Fiennes 8th Baron Dacre (1472-1533); he married Anne Bourchier. They are said to have had a daughter, Catherine Fiennes (born circa 1490). However, I have tried to research this and have found no record of a Catherine Fiennes. The only female child of Thomas Fiennes and Anne Bourchier that I have found records of is Mary Fiennes, Lady Norris (1495-1531). So, my question would be - Who is this Catherine Fiennes? Could it have been possible for Anne Bourchier to have had an illegitimate daughter whose birth went unrecorded? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have done a bit of research on the Fiennes Barons Dacre, all related to a portrait of Mary Nevill Fiennes, widow of the 9th Baron Dacre. Have you looked at Thomas Barrett-Lennard's "An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett"? On page 186, he notes the Essex Visitation (year not given), a kind of early census, and the listing there of a "Catherine, daughter of Lord Dacre". And the author notes that the heraldic arms associated within the Visitation with that Catherine and Lord Dacre are indeed those of the Fiennes Barons Dacre of the South, the Dacre line from which Sir John Dacre was born (as opposed to the Dacres of the North, surname Dacre). But the author also notes that the wills of the 7th Baron Dacre and his widow both mention only one daughter, named Mary. It therefore seems likely that any daughter of Sir John named Catherine pre-deceased her grandparents (the 7th Baron Dacre and his widow).
Catherine seems to have been married to Richard Londenoys of Brede (or Breade). Various online genealogical websites of unknown reliability indicate that Richard Londenoys and Catherine Fiennes Londenoys had one daughter, Mary, born circa 1512. Perhaps Catherine died in childbirth in 1512? The daughter Mary went on to wed Thomas Harlakenden in circa 1532 and had at least one son named Roger Harlakenden.
The Dacre-Parr connection involves the Barons Dacre of the North, aka Barons Dacre of Gilsland, surname Dacre, rather than the Barons Dacre of the South, surname Fiennes. Humphrey Dacre, 1st Baron Dacre Gilsland (of the North), married Mabel Parr, a sister of Catherine Parr's grandmother. There is no real blood connection between the Fiennes Barons Dacre and the Parrs of Kendal. But because there were two Barons Dacre at the same time, one of the south and one of the north, the confusion is a common one.
Hello, thanks for your reply. Just to be sure, we're talking about the possible daughter of Thomas Fiennes (1472-1533) and not his father John (1447-1484). This Catherine Fiennes was apparently born c. 1490, and yes, it appears she did marry Richard Londenoys; their daughter Mary (b. circa 1512) married Thomas Harlakenden. Their son Roger Harlakenden (1541-1602) married Elizabeth Hardres and fathered a son named either Thomas or Richard Harlakenden (1568-1631), who in turn married a Margaret Hubbard. They had a daughter named Mabel Harlakenden (1614-1655)(Mary Londenoys's great-granddaughter), who wed John Haynes (1593-1653); their daughter Ruth (1638-1688) continued the line, all the way to my great-grandmother Marguerite Hubbard (1887-1978). On another note, what of the connection (if any) to Alice Fitzhugh (1448-1516)? She wed John Fiennes, but did she in fact have a granddaughter named Catherine Fiennes? In the book I have, Thomas Fiennes is called the Baron of the South, so perhaps there were in fact two Catherine Fiennes and this book just mistook one for the other? I'm kind of confused, but thank you for replying!
Hello, thanks for your reply. Just to be sure, we're talking about the possible daughter of Thomas Fiennes (1472-1533) and not his father John (1447-1484). This Catherine Fiennes was apparently born c. 1490, and yes, it appears she did marry Richard Londenoys; their daughter Mary married Thomas Harlakenden. Their son Roger Harlakenden (1541-1602) married Elizabeth Hardres and fathered a son named either Thomas or Richard Harlakenden (1568-1631), who in turn married a Margaret Hubbard. They had a daughter named Mabel Harlakenden (1614-1655)(Mary Londenoys's great-granddaughter), who wed John Haynes (1593-1653); their daughter Ruth (1638-1688) continued the line, all the way to my great-grandmother Marguerite Hubbard (1887-1978). On another note, what of the connection (if any) to Alice Fitzhugh (1448-1516)? She wed John Fiennes, but did she in fact have a granddaughter named Catherine Fiennes? In the book I have, Thomas Fiennes is called the Baron of the South, so perhaps there were in fact two Catherine Fiennes and this book just mistook one for the other? I'm kind of confused, but thank you for replying!
My apologies, I meant to say "It therefore seems likely that any daughter of Thomas Fiennes, 8th Baron Dacre of the South, son of Sir John Fiennes (himelf the son of the 7th Baron Dacre of the South) named Catherine pre-deceased her grandparents (the 7th Baron Dacre and his widow)."
Whose connection to Alice Fitzhugh do you mean? Assuming that "An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett" is correct, Sir John Fiennes married Alice Fitzhugh; they had a son name Thomas; and Thomas may later have had a daughter named Catherine, though circumstantial evidence suggests that Catherine pre-deceased her grandparents. That would indeed make Catherine Fiennes the granddaughter of Alice Fitzhugh Fiennes.
Alice Fitzhugh Fiennes was the daugther of Henry Fitzhugh, 5th Baron Fitzhugh and his wife Alice Neville. Alice Neville's sister Elizabeth married William Parr of Kendal, and was grandmother of Queen Katherine Parr. So Alice Fitzhugh Fiennes's granddaughter Catherine was a distant cousin of Katherine Parr through her own grandmother Alice Fitzhugh and Parr's grandmother Elizabeth Fitzhugh.
Thomas Fiennes was indeed Baron Dacre of the *South*. The Barons Dacre of the *North*, more properly styled Barons Dacre of Gilsland, were from a family whose surname was itself Dacre, not Fiennes.
There *was* a Thomas Dacre, Baron Dacre of Gilsland, who married Mabel Parr, sister of Katherine Parr's grandfather William Parr. Thomas Dacre had a daughter, also named Katherine (obviously a popular name for girls in the period!), who would have been a distant relation (third cousin?) of Katherine Parr. But this Katherine, daughter of Thomas, was surnamed Dacre, not Fiennes. Still, that's two women named Katherine/Catherine, each in families bearing the title Baron Dacre, and each distantly related to Kathreine Parr. Makes it easy to get confused.
Nonetheless, as a direct descendant of the Fiennes-Londenoys-Harlakenden-Haynes-Hubbard lineage, you can rightly say that you are a VERY distant cousin many times removed of Queen Katherine Parr (though not a direct descendant of Parr, since she had no children known to have survived ... I get peevish when anyoen claims to be a "direct descendant" of a childless person ... LOL).
I see that I posted my previous reply twice; I apologize. PhD Historian, thank you for replying. So, Catherine Fiennes (c.1490 - ?) likely predeceased her grandparents (John Fiennes & Alice Fitzhugh) - possibly during childbirth with Mary Londenoys (1512-1564). What's weird though is that there's no record of this Catherine/Katherine Fiennes anywhere, only a brief mention that she married Richard Londenoys and had a daughter. I don't think they meant Catherine Dacre because Thomas Dacre's parents were Humphrey Dacre and Mabel Parr, and the book I have states the parents of this Catherine were Thomas Fiennes & Anne Bourchier. I just don't get how this Catherine Fiennes doesn't show up anywhere; is it possible she could have been an illegitimate offspring of Thomas Fiennes & Anne Bourchier?
It is not at all unusual for women of the Tudor period to be utterly absent from the historical record. Most women had little or no legal presence or identity. Pre-adult women were subsumed under their father's (or widowed mother's) legal presence and identity, while married women were subsumed under that of their husband. Married women, for example, did not own property independent of their husbands. Instead, a married woman's property was under the full legal control of her husband. Only widows owned and controlled property (as a general rule), and thus generated historical records related to property. Neither could married women leave a will. At their death, the property of a married woman automatically remained with the husband (in most cases, though there were exceptions). Catherine Fiennes apparently died both young and married. She therefore had little time, because of her relative youth, to generate the kinds of legal records that document a person's existence. Even her marriage may not have been recorded, since marriage registration did not become legally mandatory until the 1530s. Similarly, because she was married, she could not leave a will. Thus, the fact that Catherine Fienne's entire brief existence is so poorly documented is really not a big surprise. There are countless women of the Tudor period for which we have only a single transitory mention, unfortunately. That is why writing about women in the Tudor period is such a huge challenge! YOu often have to work with the most minimal evidence imaginable.
PhD Historian -
Thank you for your very informative answers. There may be no definite answers to this query, but at least I have more info on Catherine Fiennes than I did before! :)
Actually -- the statement "There is no real blood connection between the Fiennes Barons Dacre and the Parrs of Kendal" is incorrect.
Katherine Parr descends from Alice FitzHugh's sister, Elizabeth, not Alice. Alice Fiennes, in my research had several children by Sir John Fiennes, son of Sir Richard, 1st Baron and Philippa Dacre, heiress to the barony and suo jure Baroness Dacre. So Queen Katherine has a connection to both Barons Dacre.
As for a granddaughter named Catherine. The "An Account of the Families of the Lennard and Barrett" is a source that I have used for research and it is legit coming from the actual family and their records/correspondences.
According to the book -- "It is possible that they had another daughter of whom I have no record. Richard Londenoys of Brede is said to have married Catherine, daughter of 'Fines, lord Dacre,' but the only daughter that Lord Dacre mentions in his will is Mary."
The The New England Historical and Genealogical Register: , Volume 56 1902 states that the lineage has never been accepted by genealogists. That there seems to be no sufficient evidence that Richard married a daughter of Thomas, Lord Dacre of the South. Neither Dugdale, Collins, or any of the visitations list this daughter.
However, "[A] pedigree of the Londenoys family, recently obtained from the British
Museum (Harl. ms., 6065, fol. 76b) seems to set the matter at rest by
establishing the missing link. It appears by this pedigree that Robert
Londenoys of Breade, in County Sussex, Esq., married the daughter and heir
of William Oxenbridge of Winchelsea, armiger, and that Richard Londenoys of
Breade, Esq., a son of this marriage, married 'Catherine dau. to ye Lo.
Dacres--Az 3 lions rampt. or,' and further that Mary, 'daugh. & sole heire
to Rich. Londenoys' married Thomas Harlakenden of Warhorne in Co. Kent....
It is unsigned, and must be taken for what it is worth; but corroborative
evidence is found in the pedigree of the Oxenbridge family, which appears in
12 Sussex Arch., Coll. 230, where the marriage is also noted of Richard
Londenoys to 'Katherine daughter of Fines [Fiennes] Lord Dacre.'"
See: http://books.google.com/books?id=DwxQ8YnX-C0C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=12+Sussex+Arch.,+Coll.+230&source=bl&ots=V58evN0eyg&sig=QUttl_x3Y0_YiPPlSKk2_k1Zmxw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0dlQUfzjOabE4AOy-oGwCw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=12%20Sussex%20Arch.%2C%20Coll.%20230&f=false
However, you have several generations missing between Ruth Haynes (b.1636) who marries a Samuel Wyllis. So there is no way to see the full connection there.
Someone had trouble logging in to post a comment, so I'm posting this on their behalf:
As to Catherine Fiennes daughter of Thomas Fiennes,see The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol LVI 1902 (on Google Books)page 40. This traces Catherine's lineage to Thomas Fiennes, 8th Baron Dacre and his wife Lady Anne de Bourchier and her husband Richard Loudenoys (Londenoys).
Hi there,
Mabel Harlakenden is my 10th great grandmother. I've known since the early 90's that i'm related to the Tudor's. In my mid-30's, I'm only now looking into the genealogy myself. I'm building a huge empire of family on Ancestry.com Feel free to look me up- I'd like to know where this tree I was given, was copied from. Theres a lot of teensie writing even my young eyes ache over. It might have been from this book many of you talk about.
Thanks!
Mary
littlemary1234@hotmail.com
Post a Comment