So many Johns

As might often be true, you may come across given names that have almost become family names in themselves--used and reused across generations.  Our ancestors must've run out of given names after one or two.  Perhaps it was on purpose...just to confound the rising generations.  We have our issues with given names.  

An extreme example would be George Foreman naming five of his sons George.  Cute.  But in another 200 years or so, it will be impossible to straighten out.  It is also fair to say that a countless number of Johns exist--many thousands upon thousands.  In our family there's John Whitley, an indentured weaver who arrived in Virginia in 1650 to become a tobacco farmer and landholder.  He is said (by some) to be a direct ancestor.  This John was followed by his son, John; who was followed by his son, John...and so on.  A confusion of generational contemporaries. 

Knocking around online in the British Archives, I came across yet another John Whitley; this one from 1415.  I mention him if only for history's sake, for rarely is a common man or woman ever afforded a voice in the chronicles.  John Whitley is one such voice.  He would have been entirely anonymous to history had his name not appeared in a retinue roll for the Battle of Agincourt, October 25, 1415.  St. Crispin's Day. 

John Whitley was an archer, apparently from Nottinghamshire.  Already mentioned as bearing the Whitley surname was the notorious tailor/turned-attorney Henry de Whitley, who fled to Nottingham's Whitefriars church on 19 October 1393 to claim sanctuary on the manslaughter of his wife, Alice.  These two contemporary Whitleys--the attorney/felon Henry and the archer John--are not far separated in time or place.  Could they be related?  Of course.  But absent evidence, it would be sheer speculation to suggest they were known to each other.  

Besides, neither Nottingham Whitley is "likely" to be related being somewhat removed from our family's heartland on the Borders.  But it does suggest the surname Whitley was not unheard of in or around Nottingham in the late medieval.  

As for the archer John Whitley, his service in the battle of Agincourt was notable in a general sense.  200 years after the fact, the playwright Shakespeare wrote:  "For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.  And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here; and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day."  In prose at least, John Whitley earned his gentleman status; or more likely his yeomanry.

At Agincourt, the French were very nearly annihilated by a smaller English army.  Leading up to the fateful battle, a newly minted monarch (March 21, 1413) English King Henry V was casting about raising money, men, gathering ships and supplies in the year before he invaded France.  Ostensibly, he sought to reclaim his Norman inheritance.  In reality, he sought the whole of France and it's crown.  And he was nearly successful.  Nearly. 

Henry V had taken practically the whole of Normandy by the time of his successful siege of Rouen (July 1418-January 1419).  Rouen, the capital of Normandy, was one of France's most important cities. Unfortunately, the English force was too small to storm the walls and take the city.  So Henry V besieged it and starved Rouen's defenders into submission.  Unable to break the siege, defenders were reduced to eating dogs, cats, horses, mice...the French capitulated after some 50,000 persons starved to death.

In 1420, Henry V forced the Treaty of Troyes upon France and took Catherine, daughter of the French king Charles VI, as his wife.  The Treaty of Troyes conferred succession to the French throne upon Henry V and his heirs in perpetuity. It disinherited the Dauphin (Charles VII), and partitioned France into thirds--part for the English, part for Burgundy...and the remainder for the Dauphin.

So close and yet so far.  Henry was "nearly successful"...until dysentery (so it is thought) cut Henry V down at the age of 35, leaving his only child, Henry VI, as an eight month old heir in regency in England...and in dispute of the throne in France.  

In the late medieval, who owed what fealty to whom was complicated.  Manors or lands were given, and taken, somewhat liberally amongst aristocrats.  In a sense, it was based on royal whim (of which we are daily reminded nowadays).  These manor lands had an attached fealty to provide, when the need arose, indentures for a certain number of knights, men-at-arms, and archers.  The system was loosely based on the old Anglo-Saxon Hundreds--100 hides of land.  In summoning the fyrd (the great citizens army of the Anglo-Saxons), a hide was enough land to support a peasant family.  For every five hides in the hundred, one man was elected to serve to protect his lord's estates, or the king's.  So, 20 men per hundred. 

As agricultural productivity increased, hides came to support perhaps as many as four families.  So adjustments were made, as hundreds became known as "wards"--with the original hundred boundaries long forgotten.  As and aside, the hundred also had its own court system as well, meeting monthly and typically outdoors, to settle private and criminal cases by customary law...giving rise to the great tradition of the English Common Law which still binds us here in America to this day.    

The archer John Whitley was a member of a company indented or raised by the knight, Sir Ralph Shirley in 1415.  Shirley's company was comprised of six men-at-arms and 18 archers.  So, 24 men in total.  It participated in the siege of Harfleur (Henry V's first conquest) from mid August to late September 1415.  It was a violent siege.  John Huse, one of Shirley's man-at-arms, was killed during the siege.  Worse, time was no favor to the British.  Winter was coming and the siege was taking longer than planned, and...dysentery was running rampant in the ranks.  

Dysentery, or "Bloody Flux," was a contagion that medieval armies knew all too well, even if they did not know the why of the disease.  Generally speaking, the source of the disease is fecally contaminated water.  Harfleur is a marshland at the Seine estuary's outlet near sea level.  As Petri dishes go, it was just about ideal for the spread of dysentery. 

In fact, on October 5th upon orders of King Henry V, Sir Shirley and several of his troop (two men-at-arms and six archers) were invalided back to England.  Those did not participate at Agincourt.  Of Shirley's remaining company, 12 archers and three men-at-arms were present at the Battle of Agincourt.  Presumably, the archer John Whitley was one of the 12.  They were in the midst of the fighting because one of Shirley's man-at-arms, Ralph Fowne, captured the Duke of Bourbon in the battle at Agincourt.  

John, the Duke of Bourbon, was taken back to England and held for ransom in the Tower of London...until he died.  His ransom not being fully met.  So many Henrys.  So many Johns.

A rose by any other name

1880--The Friary, Nottingham, England (T.W. Hammond)

What's in a name?  A rose is a rose, or so Shakespeare is said to have put it.   

Among other endeavors, I intend to embark on a family history.  It's time.  My ambition is to write down as much family history, including anecdotal evidence, and avoid a reinvention the wheel by those who may follow at whatever distant point in the future they may.  Roses notwithstanding, time rolls on.

As it happens, I stumbled upon a snippet of documentary material regarding the Whitley surname.  It is found in the Burgess Pleas documents (Nottingham, England) dating to the years 1392 - 1393.  More about that in a second.  But first, the University of Nottingham should be recognized as having done yeoman's work (in 2008) on translating (from Latin and Old English) these documents.  They have now been digitized, permitting public access to what can only be considered fairly obscure historical material.  Such is the haunt of historians.  Lonely work, but somebody's got to do it. 

Second, existing pleas records (dating 1378 - 1393) are not complete.  Or rather, some simply no longer existent.  Further, of what still exists, a significant portion is illegible having sustained decay and rodent as well as moisture damage (I know--England--go figure).  Thus, the digitized rolls contain many repetitive caveats--"Heavily stained and damaged roll throughout."  Or, "[Roll 2] Heavily stained on lh side and elsewhere. Most of roll missing."  "[Roll 5] Severely damaged roll. Most of it missing and most of it illegible through damp stains."  And so forth.

But all in all, given these rolls are nearly 650 years old, their condition should be expected.  Not too bad considering.  Which leads me to a certain Henry de Whitley, alive during King Richard II's reign.  [The ambitious Richard II was King of England from 1377 until being deposed in 1399 by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) due to Richard II's increasingly arbitrary and factional rule.  (Sounds familiar).

At any rate, Henry de Whitley apparently was originally a tailor.  Back in the day, the bar at law was definitely loosely defined.  For the most part, it hinged on one's ability to read.  At least it assumed literacy.  On November 6, 1392, Whitley prepared to argue a debt before the court that he claimed was owed to him by Stephen de la Hide, another tailor.  Both tailors represented themselves.  But the jury was in default as it did not show up for court for whatever reason--likely prevailing winter conditions.  

So the case was pushed to the following court date.  At the next court, Henry de Whitley was successful.  "Jury comes and says that Stephen [owes Henry] 3s.8d. Damages: 4d. Adjudged that Henry should recover 3s.8d. [from Stephen] and 4d. damages. Stephen in mercy."  From humble beginnings a career--albeit a brief career--as an attorney opened.  

Of the cases de Whitley argued, the outcome was not always evident.  First of all, the pleas court language is arcane.  That and court cases were often pushed to the next subsequent date which, given the condition of the pleas rolls (with parts missing), it is often not possible to determine a particular case's outcome.

Henry de Whitley served as attorney mostly in money matters, or in civil court--before "civil" became a four letter word.  By way of example, de Whitley was attorney to Joan Peyntour versus John Fysshe regarding Fysshe's unlawful retention of her rosary and various silver rings.  Unfortunately, the translators note:  "MS [manuscript] preceded by an indeterminate number of illegible entries."

In other cases the outcome was known.  de Whitley represented a losing case in Richard Shadwell versus John Shepard.  Here, "losing" might should be in quotes.  Apparently Shadwell was a doctor.  Sort of.  (And medical practitioners, like attorneys in the day, were also fairly loosely defined).  Anyhow, in the plea, "Richard comes in his own person and says that John [owes him] 2s. for the curing of John’s body."  For his part, Shepard (represented by de Whitley) came before the court and "acknowledges the debt. Damages assessed at 4d. Adjudged that Richard should recover 2s. from him and 4d. damages. John in mercy."

Of course, the reverse might also be true.  de Whitley successfully represented one John Strelley versus Thomas Shether regarding calf skins (calfskynnes).  Strelley alleged 14s in damages.  Shether came before the court and admitted the debt.  "Thomas in his own person comes and acknowledges the debt.  Damages assessed at 6d.  Adjudged that John should recover 14s from Thomas."

Anyhow, I mentioned a brief career.  So it was.  On to the salubrious details.  Mid-October 1393, the Burgess pleas court noted an "Appraisal of the goods and chattels of Henry de Whitley well and faithfully appraised on Mon after the feast of St. Luke 17 Richard II [20 Oct 1393]."  The appraisal was made under oath by six of Nottingham's citizens.  

 

Now normally, one should expect an appraisal of an individual's estate to be associated with a will, a divvying up of property.  Who gets what.  But not so with Henry de Whitley. "The goods and chattels were taken on Sun after the feast of St Luke [19 Oct 1393] by the bailiffs for a death on the body of Alice, Henry’s wife, by Henry’s manslaughter (per occisione predicti Henrici) on Sun at night."  

 Manslaughter is only a small step away from murder...a half step or less.  The motive or circumstance of the killing is unknown.  But "Henry, after the felony, fled to the church of the Carmelite Friars and could not be taken."  

The church was a friary belonging to the "Whitefriars".  A History of the County of Nottingham, Volume Two notes:  "Henry de Whitley of Nottingham in October 1393 killed his wife Alice in the night-time and fled to the church of the Friars Carmelite for sanctuary, and could not be taken as he kept to the church. Whereupon the town authorities seized his goods as those of a felon; they were valued at 11s. 2½d." 

No other record exists concerning Henry de Whitley--beyond that he "kept to the church".  Evidently, Henry grew devout, as they say.  It is unknown whether he faced justice, though it is hard to imagine that he stayed forever after in the friary's church building.  And, as no children were mentioned between him and his wife Alice, there's no way to know nearly 650 years later whether he was an ancestor...or not.  Probably not, since Henry de Whitley of Nottingham isn't from the Cumbria-Northumberland-Borders heartland from which our Whitley line is said to have originated.  But you never know.  

Incidentally, Nottingham's Whitefriars was founded at some point before 1271.  Nothing remains of their friary today, unfortunately.  It long ago was removed and the site developed.  It should also be noted that regulations on sanctuary varied in different places, even though the privilege was granted from the very earliest of times.  It continued, with certain modifications made during the reign of Henry VIII.  In 1623, sanctuary was finally abolished by King James VI/I.  

White Friar's plan, Nottingham, England

 

2026--new excursion in the planning stage

This post pertains to genealogy, a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary subject for this blog.  Genealogy is prickly; mostly of interest to a limited few close (more or less) relatives.  What brings me to broach the subject is that we are again considering a trip this Easter.  This time to Ireland and an overnight or two to Scotland...if only as a matter of principle.

Kilwaughter Castle, Antrim, Ireland

While in Ireland, among other things, we'd like to take in the ruins of Kilwaughter Castle.  Located in County Antrim, North Ireland about three miles from the end of the rail line in Larne, Kilwaughter is allegedly the starting place (prior to immigration to America) of some of Darla's line.  Specifically, the Gingles family (under various spellings) who are said to have worked there.  It's a matter of family stories being chipped away by realities, in a sense.  It's made its way from the halcyon days of "Our family had a castle." to "Well, they worked at one."  Is what it is.

Kilwaughter Castle, Antrim, Ireland

The castle, incidentally, is not quite so old as it seems.  Kilwaughter's ruin (okay, almost the whole of it) was built by architect John Nash for the Agnew family from 1803 to 1807.  So, not so old.  It was, however, constructed on the site of an older 17th century tower, said to date to 1622 and which was partially incorporated into the new design.  So, it's age is perhaps a matter of how one looks at it.  

Nash, an English architect of the Georgian and Regency eras, had a rather significant role in changing Britain's landscape.  He also had some curious domestic troubles...inexplicable.  First of all, his wife Jane was living beyond their means.  Not the first time in mankind's history.  The Garden of Eden comes to mind.  And ultimately Nash would be driven into bankruptcy; again not the first time that's happened either.  But Jane had certain issues worth mentioning, if only because they seem so fantastical.  Apparently, she faked two pregnancies with Mr. Nash and imposed two "spurious" children upon him as being their own.  Assuming they were doing so, how you could cohabitate and not know is a valid question.  We'll just say it was a different age. 

Kilwaughter Castle room, Antrim, Ireland

Nash sent wife Jane away for reformation, first to Aberavon, Wales to stay with a cousin, Ann Morgan.  Jane then came back to London, continued to live luxuriously and...her affairs led to an illegitimate child with a Mr. Charles Charles.  In a subsequent lawsuit, Charles admitted the child, but alas.  He died in prison unable to pay the damages.  A divorce from Jane upon adultery was finalized in January 1787, after some 12-years of fooling with her.  After that, Nash came into his own as an British architect.         

Kilwaughter Castle room, Antrim, Ireland

Anyhow, Kilwaughter now stands in ruin (since 1951).  It's ignominious fate resulted from the passage of time and various inheritances and marriages to ever more distant relatives.  By the time World War Two broke out, the property was in the hands of an Italian noble family.  Since Italians were (temporarily) enemies, the UK government requisitioned (seized) the property as enemy assets.  Eventually Kilwaughter castle saw the stationing of the US 644th Tank Destroyer Battalion in the build up prior to D-Day.  After the war, Kilwaughter was put at auction.  A scrap dealer won the bid, and set about stripping the property bare--staircases, chandeliers, furniture, windows, paneling...but he did leave the husk which remains in precarious condition. 

Kilwaughter Castle staircase, Antrim, Ireland

Today, the Kilwaughter ruin is privately owned, only recently changing hands.  Unfortunately unlike Scotland's right-to-roam, one cannot simply traipse over fences in Ireland.  Wish it were otherwise, but landowners frown on that we are told.  So, we'll see if we can brush up permission to visit Kilwaughter.  I took some liberty in snipping a few photos from Archiseek.com.  Archiseek, by the by, is dedicated to chronicling "lost" buildings in Antrim.  Here's their site:  https://www.archiseek.com/kilwaughter-castle-co-antrim

Kilwaughter Castle, Antrim, Ireland