Certain Excerpts from:
The History and Antiquities of NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
Compiled from the Manuscript Collections of the
Late Learned Antiquary John Bridges, Esq.
by
The Rev. Peter Whalley
Late Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford
MDCCXCI
Vol. 1, pp. 124
GRETWORTH-Wordon Hundred
GRETWORTH, formerly called 'Grentevorde, Greteworde, and Gruntheworth, is bounded on the east by Hawes and Helmedon, by Stotesbury north, Merston St. Lawrence on the west and Fartbingo on the south. It is situate upon a rising ground, on a sandy soil, surrounded with a deep clay. In Gretworth are about twenty families, the street dividing them from Westhorp, which lies to the west at the end of the town, and containing near the same number of houses belongs to Merston. The part belonging to Merston is open field, the rest of the Lordship inclosed. Mr. How, the Lord of the Manor*, hath here a very good house built about twenty years ago, and situated with the town upon the hill. In his cellar ariseth a water, which, dividing itself into two streams, hath one part which runs into the Ousewell, and the other below Banbury into the Cberwell, so that it is said to visit both the universities. Gretworth lies within the Duchy* of Lancaster, and to excuse attendance pays iv d. per house to the Duchy-court, which is twice a year held at Helmedon.
At the general survey William Peverel held two Hides* in Gretworth of the fee of the bishop of Bayeux. The arable land was five Carucates*. In Demesne* was two servants, with ten villanes*, and five Cottagers* had three Carucates*. The whole had been valued at four pounds, but was then rated at three. In King Edward's time it was the freehold of Saulf.
This Bishop of Bayeux, as we before observed, was Ode half brother to the Conqueror by the mother's side, and upon the conquest advanced to the Earldom of Kent.
In the reign of Henry II., Ralph de Keynes is certified to have held two Hides* in Gretworth of his own fee. In the forth year of Edward I. Roger de Leuknare was Lord of Gretworth, and by a deed, which bears date in this year, conveyed one Moiety* of a Messuage*, eleven acres and half, and one rod of land, lying in the town and fields of Gretworth, to Agnes the daughter of Hugh le Frankelein of Westrop. He died in the twenty third year of this reign possessed of this Manor*, and was succeeded in it by Thomas de Leuknore his son. By the inquisition taken upon his death he is said to have held it by the service of five Knight's fees* of Edmond Earl of Leicester, tho, in another record I find mention made of his tenure by the service only of one Knight's fee*, and this indeed appears to be the more probable tenure of the two.
To Thomas de Leukmore succeeded Sir Thomas de Leuknore his son, who in the sixth year of Edward II. obtained a grant of free warren in Gretworth. In the third year of Edward III. a bill of indictment was preferred against this gentleman for prohibiting his tenants in the town of Gretworth from appearing at the Sheriff's turn with the rest of the Hundred, and making there the usual presentements. But upon inquiry it was found, that these tenants had ever been excused from such attendance, and owed no suit nor service to any court-leet, or baron, except to the Manor* court held at Gretworth, and the court of the Earl of Leicester at Helmedon. This Sir Thomas de Leuknore with Agnes his wife, in the thirty sixth of this reign levied a Fine* of the Manor*.
In this family it remained till the time of Henry VIII. in the twenty second year of whose reign I find a Fine* was levied of it, between Sir Edward Neville and Henry Draper from whom it must have passed to Andrew Lord Windsor, as he appears to have been possessed of it in the twenty seventh year of the same reign, and to have left it to his successors one of whom, Edward Lord Windsor, levied a Fine* of it in the twenty seventh year of the same reign, and to have left it to his successors one of whom, Edward Lord Windsor, levied a Fine* of it in the ninth year of Queen Elizabeth. Of this Lord Windsor, William Pargitur, Esq. held one Messuage*, three Virgates* and an half of land, one Virgate* and one quartern in Gretworth by fealty and certain annual payments. His posterity were afterwards Lords of this Manor*, from whom it descended to the present possessor Charles Howe, Esq. by his marriage with the Lady Dering, the sole daughter and heiress of Sir William Pargiter.
pp.125
The church, dedicated to St. Peter, consists of a body and north ile leaded, with a Chancel* tiled. At the west end is an embatteled tower, built about sixteen years ago, in which are five bells. Round the tenor is inscribed in Gothic letters, _AN_CE MICHAEL DRAPRD AD1630. The length of the church and Chancel* is fifty two foot, the breadth of the body and ile thirty five foot. The length of the tower is eleven foot six inches; the breadth of it is ten foot ten inches. In the lower south window of the Chancel* are the arms of Pargiter, Barry of four, Or and Sable, three mascles counterchanged. In the east window of the north ile, Barry three chevrons argent. On the north side of this window in a small shield are the arms of Pargitur painted against the wall. On the south side of the same window in a like shield, On two bars gules three water-bowgets. The register is dated in 1559. In the year 1254, 38 Henry III. it was rated at ixl. xis. out of which was allowed xs. viid. for synodals and procurations. The Glebe* consists only of a yard and half land, and the rector receives iis. per acre, by a decree made upon the inclosure about eighty years ago. The right of presentation to the living, which is in Brackley deanery, is in Mr. Howe the Lord of the Manor*.
pp. 126
In the Chancel* under the altar upon a freetone is this inscription:
JACOBUS WALBANKE,
SS. T. B.
HUJUS ECCLESIAE PASTOR FIDELIS,
HIC DORMIT, HINC RESURGET
AD SALUTEM.
OBIIT FEB. 7. MDCXLVII.
RELICTA CONJUGE FRANCISCA, ET
UNIGENITO FILIO S.W.
In the north ile upon a grave-stone, under the arms of Pargiter:
Hic jacet Willielmus Pargiter Arm. qui obiit 16. die Feb. Anno Domini 1661. AEtat. fuae 84.
Under the seats in the north ile, on a freestone:
Sir William Pargiter, Knt.
who dyed the 11th day
of August, Anno Dom. 1678.
And not far from it against the wall, upon an oval tablet of black marble, and adorned with a white marble curtain, having at the top these arms, Pargiter, impaling gules fix lozenges vaire argent and azure, with an urn above them, is the following inscription:
NEAR THIS PLACE LYETH
THE BODY OF SIR WILLIAM PARGITER
SON AND HEIR OF ROBERT PARGITER, ESQ, AND
PHILLIS HIS WIFE DAUGHTER TO MR PAGE. HE MARRIED ELIANOR RELICT OF LAUR. WASHINGTON, ESQ,
BY WHOM HE HAD ONE DAUGHTER ELIANOR
HE DYED THE 11TH OF AUGUST
MDCLXXVIII, AND IN THE XLVIII th
YEAR OF HIS AGE
HE WAS THE LAST OF IV. GENERATIONS
THAT LYETH HERE INTERR'D.
ERECTED THIS MONUMENT IN
PIOUS MEMORY
OF HIM
Near to this, on another stone:
HERE LYES THE BODY OF
PHILLIS PARGITER WIDOW,
THE RELICT OF ROBERT PARGITER, ESQ,
WHO DYED JULY 10th 1699. IN THE 94th YEAR OF HER AGE.
Against the south wall of the north ile is an hansome grey and white marble compartment. On a pedistal at the top stands an urn, and below the cornith on a white marble tablet is this inscription:
This monument was erected by CHARLES HOWE, esq. in memory of his dearest wife ELIANOR reliet of Sir HENRY DERING, Knt, who was sole daughter and heiress of Sir WILLIAM PARGITER of Grittworth and of ELIANOR descended of the family of the GUISES in Gloucestershire. After her first husband's decease without issue, she was married to Mr. HOWE, by whom she had three sons and three daughters, of whom LEONORA MARIA is the only child that survived her. Her other five children are buried with her in a vault in this church. She was born the 5th of May 1665. She underwent severe pains and afflictions with an unspeakable constancy and entire resignation to the will of God, and with a steady faith and firm assurance (thru his mercy) of her approaching happiness. She dyed the 25th of July 1696.
pp. 127
Under this inscription between two cherubs are these arms: Or, a fess between three wolves heads sable coupe, impaling Pargiter, and over the first coat an escutcheon of pretence, Pargiter.
In the passage towards the south door, on afree stone:
HERE LYETH INTERRED THE BODY OF THE REVEREND AND WORTHY THOMAS PARGITER, D.D. WHO WAS RECTOR OF THIS CHURCH ABOVE XXX YEARS, AND AFTER A FAITHFUL DISCHARGE OF HIS PASTORAL OFFICE, AND A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD AND MAN, IN SURE AND CERTAIN HOPE OF A RESURRECTION TO ETERNAL LIFE, DEPARTED THISTHE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, AN. DOM. MDCCV. IN THE LXIII. YEAR OF HIS AGE.
Upon the inclosure of the Lordship, there were church-lands to the value of about iv l. per annum given to the repairs of the church. Lands about the yearly value of v l. were purchased with one hundred pounds left to the poor by . . . Pargiter, whereof one fifth part belongs to Westhorp.
In 1689, the Lady Elianor Dering in memory of her husband Sir Henry Dering, who lies buried in this church, gave two silver flagons, two silver cups and covers, as communion plate for the use of this parish. This benefaction is inscribed upon a white marble, and placed in the east wall, on the south side of the church. The wake follows the feast of St. Peter.
SULGRAVE - Wardon Hundred
SULGRAVE is bounded on the east by Helmedon and Weston, by Morton and Culworth on the north, Thorp-Mandeville west, and Merfton and Gretworth on the south. It is a village of about ninety families, and forty freeholders. The parish is all open field, except some small inclosures, which belong to particular farms. Westward of the church is an hill named Castle-hill, on which was formerly a castle. In the midway between Culworth and this town is about an acre of ground, fenced in with an hedge, called the Old Church-yard, where the church is supposed to have stood. Stones and bones are often dug up here, and it is preserved as consecrated ground, though never used, unless privately by Roman-Catholics.
About a mile, northwards from the town, in the road between Banbury and Northampton, is Burrow-hill, a Factitious* mount, supposed to be a Tumulus*. On the top, which is about forty foot square, there grows an old ash, from whence the prospect extends itself into nine Counties; namely, into Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Perkshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, and Hertfordshire and it is thought that some part of Wiltshire and Hamshire, may likewise be seen from hence.
In this town was formerly a Grange* to the monastery of St. Andrew in Northampton and a spring which riseth near the place where this house stood, still retains the name of Halywell-spring. Not far from it is a mineral water, as also another in Mark-flade, called Mark-well.
At the time of Domesday survey,[1086] Gilo the brother of Anculf held four Hides* in Sulgrave, and Hugh, Landric, and Othert were his under tenants. The arable land was ten Carucates*. In Demesne* were three Carucates* with one servant and twenty villanes* and six Cottagers* had five carucates*. There were eight acres of meadow. The whole had been valued at nine pounds, but was then rated only at seven. It lay within the Soke* of Wardon.
This Gilo is sometimes named Gilo de Pinchenni, and was the founder of the priory of Wedon-Pinkney, as a cell to the monastery of St. Lucian near Beauvais in France. His Barony* was held of the crown in Capite by the service of fifteen Knights fees, for which his successors paid yearly into the hands of the constable of Windsor castle fifteen pounds, towards the guard of that castle.
In the beginning of the reign of Edward I. [1272-1307] Henry de Glynton is certified to hold one Knight's fee* in Sulgrave of William de Pinkeny, and John de Monthault to hold half a Knight's fee* of Richard de Colworth. This John de Monthault died in the twenty second year of this reign,[1294], seized of a Manor* in Sulgrave, which was held of Robert de Pinkeney by the service of a sixth part of a Knight's fee*. To Richard de Colworth succeeded his son William Fitz-Richard under whom Main de Pinkeney was an inferior tenant. But the superior Lord of the whole fee was Henry the lineal descendent from Gilo de Pinkeney: for by inquisition taken in the thirty second year of this reign,[1304], it appears that Simon de Pinkeney held one fee in Sulgrave of the said Henry and this predecessors, and Philippa the widow of William de Colworth another.
The successor of John de Monthault in his estate of Sulgrave was Adam de Monbault his son. This gentleman died in the thirty fourth year of this reign, [1305], and by inquisition upon his death he was found to have been joint-tenant of the Manor* of Sulgrave with Margaret his wife, as of the inheritance of William de Gayton, one third part of it being settled in dower upon Anne the wife of Walter de Gayton. It was held by the service of half a Knight's fee*, and descended to Elizabeth their only daughter, a minor of two years of age. The Barony* of Pinkeney was at this time in the hands of the crown. Henry the last possessor having sold and alienated part of this fees, and by deed bearing date the 4th of September in the twenty ninth year of this reign,[1301], granted and given up the rest to the King, his heirs and successors forever.
pp. 128
In the fourth year of Edward III.[1327-1377] the prior of St. Andrews in Northampton, and Stephen de Trafford were Lords of Sulgrave by the service and annual payment of xxs. towards the guard of Windsor castle, one Moiety* whereof was paid by the prior, and the other by Stephen de Trafford. This Stephen had taken to wife Elizabeth the daughter of Adam de Monthault, and in her right became possessed of the Manor*. She died in the eighteenth year of this reign,[1345], and left it to Stephen de Trafford her son and heir who in the twentieth year of the same reign, [1347], upon collecting the aid for making the King's son a Knight, accounted for half a Knight's fee* in Sulgrave, as held of the fee of Pinkeney.
This Stephen de Trafford in the thirtieth year of this reign, [1357], made a grant to this Manor* of Sulgrave to Sir Fulk de Burmingham during life and in the forty fifth year of the same reign, [1372] he passed it to Henry de Arderne, who levied a fine* of it the same year. At this time the Manor* was held by John de Muffenden for the term of his life, at the yearly rent of six pounds.
To return to Trafford's Manor. From Sir Henry de Arderne it descended to Ralph de Arderne his eldest son, who in the seventh year of Henry IV, [1399-1413] made a conveyance of it to Hellen the widow of Sir Henry de Arderne his father, with remainder to William de Arderne his brother. This William in the ninth year of the same reign, [1408], gave it back to the said Ralph his brother, from whom it passed to Robert de Arderne his heir. Of this gentleman in the eighteenth year, [1440], of Henry VI, [1422-1471]. it was purchased by Richard Danvers of Culworth, Esq. who levied a Fine* of it in the same year. In this Fine* it is called the Manor* of Netherbury in sulgrave.
But besides these two Manors there appears to have been at this time a third Manor* in Sulgrave, formerly in the possession of William de Pinkeney, which was held by Henry de Elington, of the Manor* of Morton-Pinkeney, by the service of one Knight's fee* and an half, and an annual payment of xxxs. and from him named Elington's-Manor. This Henry de Elington in the twentieth year, [1347], of Edward III,[1327-1377]. upon making the King's son a Knight, accounted for one Moiety* of a Knight's fee* in Sulgrave, as held of the honor of Windsor, and the fee of Pinkeney. From him it passed to John Sottesbury, Gent. who upon an action brought against him in the thirty third year of this reign, [1455], by the prior of St. Andrews, for cutting down a certain quantity of underwood in Sulgrave, made it appear that the said underwood was his own property, as lying within his own Manor* of Sulgrave, called Elington's-Manor. In the male line of this family it continued till the reign of Henry VIII,[1509-1547]. and then descended to a daughter, Susan the wife of Robert Leeson of Whitfield, Esq with whose posterity it also remained for several generations, and from them had the name of Leeson's-Manor.
It remained in this family till about the year 1604. when it came into the hands of Crew, Esq and from one of his descendents hath since passed to the present possessor John Hodges, Esquire.
pp. 278
ABTHORPE, FOXCOTE, CHALLOCK and BURCOTE
"Mrs. JANE LEESON, spinster"
Mrs. Jane Leeson Spinster*, by her will bearing date 27 Maii 1646, founded here a freeschool for the benefit of Abthorpe and Foxcote, and settled on the master a salary of eight pounds per annum. To the poor of the same place she gave a yearly benefaction of three pounds, and xxvii l. to be annually distributed amongst thepoor of several other towns in the neighbourhood. Her estate and lands in Abthorpe are settled for the payment of these charities, under the management of certain feoffes, and their successors, appointed by her will.
This gentlewoman was born at Francton in Warwickshire, where Thomas Leeson her father, or ancestor, was Lord of the Manor*. She died on the first of April 1648, and was buried near the pulpit in the chapel of Abthorpe, but the inscription on her grave-stone is almost wholly effaced. Some of the family were settled and possessed of an estate at Abthorpe.
Upon the surrender of the monastery of St. Andrew in the twenty ninth year, [1538], of Henry VIII, [1509-1547]. the Manor* of Sulgrave which belonged to that house, was given up to the crown, and a Fine* levied of it the same year between the King and Francis prior of St. Andrews to the use of his Majesty. In the year following it was granted to Laurence Washington, Esquire. This gentleman was the son of John Washington, Esq. . . . .
pp. 129
of Warton in Lanceshire by Margaret the daughter of Robert Kitson of Warton, and sister to Sir Thomas Kitson Alderman of London. He died in the twenty sixth year of Queen Elizabeth, and left his estate in Sulgrave to Robert Washington his eldest son, by Anne the daughter of Robert Pargiter, Esq. by whose posterity it was long enjoyed, and from whom it received the name of Washington's Manor*. The abovementioned John Hodges, Esq, is at present Lord of this Manor*.
The monks of Canons-Abby and nuns of Cansby had here likewise some small revenues. The possessions of the former at the time of their dissolution were valued at the yearly rent of vii s. viii d. and of the latter at xxxv s. iv d. These in the thirtieth year of Henry VIII. were all granted with the Manor* of Sulgrave to Laurence Washington, Esquire.
The church dedicated to St. James, consists of a body and south ile, leaded, and Chancel* tiled. At the west end is a low embatteled tower, in which are five bells. The length of the church and Chancel* is seventy one foot, the breadth of the body and ile twenty nine foot. The lengthof the tower is twelve foot, and the breadth nine foot. The old register was burnt some time ago with the vicarage-house, the succeeding one begins in 1649. This church was given very early to the convent of St. Andrew in Northampton by Bartholomew the son of Godfrey de Sulgrave, with the consent of his superior Lord Robert de Pinkeney, and the donation confirmed by Hugh Wells bishop of Lincoln, in whose time the vicarage was ordained. The valuation of this church doth not occur in the taxation by the bishop of Norwich but in 1291.19 Edward I, the rectory was valued at nine marks and the vicarage at six. In 1535, 26 Henry VIII. the rectory was rated at ix l. and the vicarage at x l. out of which was allowed iii s. for synodals and procurations. Upon the dissolution of the monasteries the rectory and advowson fell to the crown, and in the sixth year of Edward VI. were granted to Thomas Cycell and Peter bold. Mrs. Wickam of Swacliffe in Oxfordshire is the present impropriator of the tythes, and presents to the vicarage, which is in the deanery of Brackley.
At the upper end of the north ile are these arms, two bars, in chief three mullets, upon an old marble, underneath is the figure of a man in brass, and at his feet the following inscription on a brass tablet:
Here lyeth buried the body of Laurence Washington and of Anne his wyf, by whom he had issue iiii. sons and vii. daughters . . . died the . . . day . . . .
PP. 477
NEWBOTTLE HUNDRED
[Inscription in a church at the above location] "near the reading-desk."
HERE LIES INTERRED THE BODDIES OF ELIZABETH WASHINGTON WIDOW, WHO CHANGED THIS LIFE FOR IMMORTALITIE THE 19. OF MARCH 1622. - AS ALSO THE BODY OF ROBERT WASHINGTON GENT. HER LATE HUSBAND SECOND SONNE OF ROBERT WASHINGTON OF SOLGRAVE IN THE COUNTIE OF NORTHAMPTON ESQ; WHO DEPARTED THIS LIFE THE 10th OF MARCH 1622. AFTER THEY LIVED LOVINGLY TOGETHER MANY YEARES IN THIS PARISH.
* GLOSSARY *
Barony Land held as a grant directly from the king.
Carucate Land equal to a Hide
Chancel The space around the alter in a church.
Cottager Peasant of low class with a cottage but little or no land.
Demesne The part of the Lord's manorial lands reserved for his own use and not allocated to his serfs or freeholder tenants.
Duchy A district ruled by a member of the royal family.
Factitious Artificial
Feoffee One to whom a feudal estate is granted.
Fine A sum paid to a lord in return for the granting of a favor (such as permission to marry or permission to enter a holding).
Glebe The land assigned to support the parish.
Grange A farm
Hide An old English measure of land, usually the amount held adequate for one free family and its dependents.
Knight's fee In theory, a fief which provides sufficient revenue to equip and support one knight. This is approximately twelve hides or 1500 acres, although the terms applies more to revenue a fief can generate than its size; it requires about thirty marks per year to support a knight. In practice, the knight's fee became a unit of assessment to services and taxes, large fiefs being reckoned at multiples, and tiny fiefs at fractions of the knight's fee.
Manor An estate with land and jurisdiction over tenants. Not necessarily a whole village which might have several manors, just as one manor might own land in more than one village. A unit of rural lordship, varying greatly in size.
Messuage Site of a home with its outbuildings
Moiety Literally one half. In the case of clerical taxation, it is commonly one half of a tenth.
Soke Land attached to a central manor for payment of dues and for judicial purposes.
Spinster A single woman.
Tumulus An ancient grave mound
Villanes Peasants who, by definitions established c. 1200, was unfree to the extent that, although not a chattel of his lord, he could not leve his holding and owed services for it ;which were limited only by custom and his lord's court.
Virgate One quarter of a hide.
Monday, October 20, 2014
GENEALOGY ~ Our English Leesons.....
1. John STOTESBURY
1. John Edward STOTESBURY
2. Thomas STOTESBURY & Ciceley BRAILES
1. Susan STOTESBURY (1500-1564) & Robert LEESON (1500-1556)
1. Thomas LEESON Esq. (1547-1614) & Jane LOWE (1550-1614)
1. Thomas LEESON (1577-1621) & Margaret KIRTON (1580-)
1. Thomas GLEASON [LEASON] (1607-1686) & Susanna PAGE (1611-1690)
2. William LEESON V
V
V
13. William Stotesbury-Leeson
2. Susan LEESON (1569-) & William STEAVENS
3. Jane LEESON (1571-1649) & ? PARGITER
4. ? LEESON & William STEAVENS
5. Arthur LEESON (1573-1646) & Elner ELSIEE
1. John LEESON (1646-)
2. Jane LEESON & ? CAPELL
2. Margaret LEESON (1549-)
3. Joyce LEESON (1551-) & John ROBINSON
1. John Edward STOTESBURY
2. Thomas STOTESBURY & Ciceley BRAILES
1. Susan STOTESBURY (1500-1564) & Robert LEESON (1500-1556)
1. Thomas LEESON Esq. (1547-1614) & Jane LOWE (1550-1614)
1. Thomas LEESON (1577-1621) & Margaret KIRTON (1580-)
1. Thomas GLEASON [LEASON] (1607-1686) & Susanna PAGE (1611-1690)
2. William LEESON V
V
V
13. William Stotesbury-Leeson
2. Susan LEESON (1569-) & William STEAVENS
3. Jane LEESON (1571-1649) & ? PARGITER
4. ? LEESON & William STEAVENS
5. Arthur LEESON (1573-1646) & Elner ELSIEE
1. John LEESON (1646-)
2. Jane LEESON & ? CAPELL
2. Margaret LEESON (1549-)
3. Joyce LEESON (1551-) & John ROBINSON
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
GENEALOGY ~ BYU Test Results
under Dr. Scott Woodward. Original report generated by Diahan Southard at Sorenson Genomics Oct. 5, 2001 ( presently Relative Genetics - http://www.relativegenetics.com ) |
Mutations |
| SC36.1 | SC36.2 | SC36.3 | SC36.4 | SC36.5 | SC36.6 | ||
| SC36.1 | 13a | 13a | 12a | 12a | 12a | ||
| Number | SC36.2 | 24 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| of | SC36.3 | 24 | 2 | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| intervening | SC36.4 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 13 | |
| generations | SC36.5 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 2 | 13 | |
| SC36.6 | 18 | 24 | 24 | 18 | 18 |
3 William Leeson 4 Thomas Gleason II b.1637 5 Isaac Gleason b.1674 6 Thomas Gleason III b.1671 7 Isaac Gleason b.1654 2 SC36.2 Stotesbury-Leeson 3 SC36.3 Stotesbury-Leeson 4 SC36.4 Gleason 5 SC36.5 Gleason 6 SC36.6 Gleason |
Monday, October 13, 2014
GENEALOGY ~ DNA Testing between Gleason ~ Leeson families via BYU University
THE GLEASON FAMILY DNA TESTING PROJECT
There are a number of descendents of Thomas Gleason (4) - Susannah Page, who met and established frequent communication through the Internet. Currently they meet privately on a Gleason WEB page, courtesy of MyFamily.com, a genealogy based WEB site. They are related through different length branches from a common ancestor, Thomas Leeson/Gleason (4), by both male and mixed male-female lineages.
Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason
The established links to Thomas Gleason (4) appear to be better documented than many family surname groups. Much of the early American family history was researched and published in 1909 in a book entitled Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason by John Barber White. The book is often referred to as the “Gleason Bible.” It has been widely accepted by Thomas Gleason (4) descendants as a source for their early American roots.
Given the research and history of the Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) - Susannah Page family, the early Gleason genealogists concluded that Thomas (4) was likely the son of Thomas Leeson (3) and Margaret Kirton. This line descends from Thomas Leeson-Jane Lowe (2), who descends from Robert Leeson (1) and Susan Stotesbury all of Sulgrave, Northampton Co. England.
The White book does contain some errors. However, it is reasonably accurate and has no known relationship errors. John Barber White cites as a primary source, a book by Daniel A. Gleason. Except for slight location discrepancies, the books are in good agreement. White states in his introduction:
"In the English records, the name is invariably spelled without the "G", and appears, generally as Leeson, and a rather numerous family of that name lived in Northampton County, England. This, coupled with the fact that, in the earliest records in this country, those of Watertown and Cambridge, Mass., the name appears as Leson and Leason, respectively, affords grounds for the belief that Thomas of Watertown was a descendant of the Leesons of Northampton County and this belief is further strengthened by the similarity of Christian names, used by the Northampton County family and those appearing in the early generations of the American family."
The Gleason Lineage
Thomas (4) was born about 1607 in Sulgrave, Northampton, England. It is believed that Thomas’s (4) first son, Thomas (5), was born in Sulgrave, England about 1637. The parents (4) and at least one child (5) and probably an older daughter, Susannah, b. abt. 1634, are thought to have arrived in America during 1638 or soon thereafter. Their second son, Joseph (5), was born in Watertown, MA about 1642. There are many spellings of the name “Gleason” and by all accounts, Thomas Gleason (4) of Sulgrave was actually Thomas Leeson (4) at birth. The name change from Leeson to Gleason occurred for a yet unknown reason several years after their arrival in America.
What is known is that Thomas (4) was a Puritan. This gives reasonable cause for his move from England to America. The dissenter (Puritan) movement from the Church of England resulted in the settlement by over one thousand Puritans in 1630 alone and several thousand more in the years that followed to Boston, Massachusetts. Puritans were an intolerant group who did not allow any other group within their (Massachusetts) jurisdiction. Therefore, it is certain that these were English Gleasons and not Irish Gleasons since the protestant Puritan movement didn’t extend welcome to Catholic Ireland. In addition, the majority of Irish Gleasons didn’t arrive in America until the 1840s as a result of the potato famine in Ireland.
The Issue
The Robert Leeson (1) - Thomas Gleason (4) family tie was challenged in 1999 when the Gleason WEB clan was contacted by The Honourable William A. L. Stotesbury-Leeson (16), who through the Internet, questioned our claim of a tie to the Robert Leeson/Susan Stotesbury (1) family. The Hon. William A. L. Stotesbury-Leeson (16) is a well-documented descendant of Robert Leeson and Susan Stotesbury (1). He indicated that there was no reference to Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) in his family genealogy records.
A Possible Solution
With the advances in DNA research and its potential use to genealogists, it was proposed that it would be beneficial to investigate, via Y-chromosomal, DNA the relationship between the two family lines. The challenge would be that living descendents could establish a common relationship to an individual born over four hundred years ago.
The Project
A DNA project document was drafted, edited and approved by all the potential DNA donors from the Gleason and Stotesbury- Leeson families. Lineages of all parties involved were furnished as one outline genealogy database. During 2001, The Center for Molecular Genealogy at Brigham Young University was contacted and generously accepted to undertake the project. DNA blood donors living throughout the United States and Canada were contacted and submitted blood samples using kits furnished by Brigham Young University.
The Project Genealogical/DNA Question
Was Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) a natural descendant of Thomas Leeson (3) or perhaps a close common ancestor?
The Project Results
(Note: the actual DNA report has been modified for clarity and simplicity to be consistent with the overall project documentation)
The Center for Molecular Genealogy at Brigham Young University
Case Number SC2001-36 dated October 5, 2001
Objectives:
Genealogical records indicate Thomas Leeson (3) fathered 1 son, William (4). It is also suspected that this same Thomas Leeson could have fathered another son, Thomas Gleason or Leeson (4).
Direct male descendents (varying generations 14-16) of these two sons submitted biological blood samples to determine if common Y-chromosome markers could determine whether they share a common paternal ancestor in Thomas Leeson (3). In total, six individuals submitted blood samples to test these relationships.
The Principle:
Y-chromosome (Ycs) markers are inherited from father to son and remain mostly unaltered from generation to generation. This property makes the Ycs an ideal focus for genealogical studies because, barring adoption or illegitimacy, the route of the Ycs through time in a pedigree exactly parallels the surname in many western cultures. By determining a Ycs fingerprint, or haplotype, of several related male individuals, a Ycs haplotype can be created that is associated with a specific surname. This information can be used for further genealogical pursuits by allowing males with the same or similar last name to compare Ycs haplotypes and determine descent from a common paternal ancestor.
Summary of Findings:
The data indicate the likelihood that the Gleason (four DNA donors - two sibling) do share a common paternal ancestor [possibly Thomas Leeson (3)] with the Stotesbury-Leesons (two sibling DNA donors) with a high 95% Confidence probability value of 0.788.
The Path Forward
Most of the participants are still absorbing the fact that the DNA project actually established a true kinship between the two families. As far as the DNA project goes, it would have been a success even if the results revealed that there was no family connection.
The DNA project has cemented a family connection that was already blossoming on the internet. The matriarch of the Stotesbury-Leeson family seemed to know what the results would be long before the project results were known. She related that she had seen a photo of a Gleason ancestor that had been posted at the Gleason WEB site. She noted that it bore a striking resemblance to her late father-in-law. Had the project revealed that there was no family connection, the two families probably would have e-adopted one another anyway.
The DNA project sets forth a now known genealogical fact for future Leeson-Stotesbury and Gleason generations. In other words, folks, your very shakey assumptions are probably true - you don't have to delete the top end of your Gleason genealogy!
A side issue was also resolved by the DNA project: One of the Gleason participants had a very weak generation link supported only by a Sunday school record. It was the only clue that one of his ancestors even existed. A professional genealogist supposed that this
individual was probable, and also an important link to his Thomas Gleason (4) family line. In proving the continuity of this lineage, the DNA results validated the genealogist's supposition. Any break in a paternal line through adoption or other non-paternal event is not supported by DNA evidence. Even though the family name may continue through such discontinuity, the genetic line does not.
The DNA project suggests that Thomas Leeson (3) may be the father of Thomas Leeson (Gleason) (4) but it also remains that there may be another unknown Leeson that may be the actual father. What is important, is that the DNA project places the Gleason family firmly with roots across the big Pond and is truly related to the Leeson-Stotesbury family. This will give family historians solid ground to further investigate and document the missing pieces of how the two families are connected.
Acknowledgements:
Diahan L. Southard:
Diahan, formerly a microbiology major from Washington state, performed numerous technical tasks for the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University (BYU). Eventually she became the contact person for the Special Cases unit of the laboratory and therefore administrator for our project. When BYU released all of it Special Cases to newly formed Relative Genetics < http://www.relativegenetics.com/ > a subsidiary company of Sorenson Companies, Diahan moved with them and continued serving our project and answering our many many questions.
Scott R. Woodward, PhD
Dr. Woodward is currently a Professor of Microbiology and faculty member of the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University. He received his Ph.D. degree in genetics from Utah State University in 1984. He did postdoctoral work in molecular genetics at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Utah. While at the University of Utah he discovered a genetic marker used for the identification of carriers and the eventual discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He was also involved with the identification of other gene markers for colon cancer and neurofibromatiosis. He joined the faculty at BYU in 1989. While at BYU he has been involved with the Seila, Egypt excavation team, directing the genetic and molecular analysis of Egyptian mummies, both from a commoners' cemetery and of the Egyptian Royal mummies. His research interests include the reconstruction of ancient and modern genealogies using DNA techniques with samples from all over the world, the tracing of human population movements by following gene migrations (including both Old and New World populations) and the DNA analysis of ancient manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has been the Scholar in Residence at the BYU Center for Near Eastern Studies in Jerusalem and a visiting professor at Hebrew University. His work has been featured both nationally and internationally on numerous programs including Good Morning America, Discovery and the Learning Channels.
Our project has been very fortunate to have such quality technical oversight.
There are a number of descendents of Thomas Gleason (4) - Susannah Page, who met and established frequent communication through the Internet. Currently they meet privately on a Gleason WEB page, courtesy of MyFamily.com, a genealogy based WEB site. They are related through different length branches from a common ancestor, Thomas Leeson/Gleason (4), by both male and mixed male-female lineages.
Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason
The established links to Thomas Gleason (4) appear to be better documented than many family surname groups. Much of the early American family history was researched and published in 1909 in a book entitled Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason by John Barber White. The book is often referred to as the “Gleason Bible.” It has been widely accepted by Thomas Gleason (4) descendants as a source for their early American roots.
Given the research and history of the Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) - Susannah Page family, the early Gleason genealogists concluded that Thomas (4) was likely the son of Thomas Leeson (3) and Margaret Kirton. This line descends from Thomas Leeson-Jane Lowe (2), who descends from Robert Leeson (1) and Susan Stotesbury all of Sulgrave, Northampton Co. England.
The White book does contain some errors. However, it is reasonably accurate and has no known relationship errors. John Barber White cites as a primary source, a book by Daniel A. Gleason. Except for slight location discrepancies, the books are in good agreement. White states in his introduction:
"In the English records, the name is invariably spelled without the "G", and appears, generally as Leeson, and a rather numerous family of that name lived in Northampton County, England. This, coupled with the fact that, in the earliest records in this country, those of Watertown and Cambridge, Mass., the name appears as Leson and Leason, respectively, affords grounds for the belief that Thomas of Watertown was a descendant of the Leesons of Northampton County and this belief is further strengthened by the similarity of Christian names, used by the Northampton County family and those appearing in the early generations of the American family."
The Gleason Lineage
Thomas (4) was born about 1607 in Sulgrave, Northampton, England. It is believed that Thomas’s (4) first son, Thomas (5), was born in Sulgrave, England about 1637. The parents (4) and at least one child (5) and probably an older daughter, Susannah, b. abt. 1634, are thought to have arrived in America during 1638 or soon thereafter. Their second son, Joseph (5), was born in Watertown, MA about 1642. There are many spellings of the name “Gleason” and by all accounts, Thomas Gleason (4) of Sulgrave was actually Thomas Leeson (4) at birth. The name change from Leeson to Gleason occurred for a yet unknown reason several years after their arrival in America.
What is known is that Thomas (4) was a Puritan. This gives reasonable cause for his move from England to America. The dissenter (Puritan) movement from the Church of England resulted in the settlement by over one thousand Puritans in 1630 alone and several thousand more in the years that followed to Boston, Massachusetts. Puritans were an intolerant group who did not allow any other group within their (Massachusetts) jurisdiction. Therefore, it is certain that these were English Gleasons and not Irish Gleasons since the protestant Puritan movement didn’t extend welcome to Catholic Ireland. In addition, the majority of Irish Gleasons didn’t arrive in America until the 1840s as a result of the potato famine in Ireland.
The Issue
The Robert Leeson (1) - Thomas Gleason (4) family tie was challenged in 1999 when the Gleason WEB clan was contacted by The Honourable William A. L. Stotesbury-Leeson (16), who through the Internet, questioned our claim of a tie to the Robert Leeson/Susan Stotesbury (1) family. The Hon. William A. L. Stotesbury-Leeson (16) is a well-documented descendant of Robert Leeson and Susan Stotesbury (1). He indicated that there was no reference to Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) in his family genealogy records.
A Possible Solution
With the advances in DNA research and its potential use to genealogists, it was proposed that it would be beneficial to investigate, via Y-chromosomal, DNA the relationship between the two family lines. The challenge would be that living descendents could establish a common relationship to an individual born over four hundred years ago.
The Project
A DNA project document was drafted, edited and approved by all the potential DNA donors from the Gleason and Stotesbury- Leeson families. Lineages of all parties involved were furnished as one outline genealogy database. During 2001, The Center for Molecular Genealogy at Brigham Young University was contacted and generously accepted to undertake the project. DNA blood donors living throughout the United States and Canada were contacted and submitted blood samples using kits furnished by Brigham Young University.
The Project Genealogical/DNA Question
Was Thomas (Leeson) Gleason (4) a natural descendant of Thomas Leeson (3) or perhaps a close common ancestor?
The Project Results
(Note: the actual DNA report has been modified for clarity and simplicity to be consistent with the overall project documentation)
The Center for Molecular Genealogy at Brigham Young University
Case Number SC2001-36 dated October 5, 2001
Objectives:
Genealogical records indicate Thomas Leeson (3) fathered 1 son, William (4). It is also suspected that this same Thomas Leeson could have fathered another son, Thomas Gleason or Leeson (4).
Direct male descendents (varying generations 14-16) of these two sons submitted biological blood samples to determine if common Y-chromosome markers could determine whether they share a common paternal ancestor in Thomas Leeson (3). In total, six individuals submitted blood samples to test these relationships.
The Principle:
Y-chromosome (Ycs) markers are inherited from father to son and remain mostly unaltered from generation to generation. This property makes the Ycs an ideal focus for genealogical studies because, barring adoption or illegitimacy, the route of the Ycs through time in a pedigree exactly parallels the surname in many western cultures. By determining a Ycs fingerprint, or haplotype, of several related male individuals, a Ycs haplotype can be created that is associated with a specific surname. This information can be used for further genealogical pursuits by allowing males with the same or similar last name to compare Ycs haplotypes and determine descent from a common paternal ancestor.
Summary of Findings:
The data indicate the likelihood that the Gleason (four DNA donors - two sibling) do share a common paternal ancestor [possibly Thomas Leeson (3)] with the Stotesbury-Leesons (two sibling DNA donors) with a high 95% Confidence probability value of 0.788.
The Path Forward
Most of the participants are still absorbing the fact that the DNA project actually established a true kinship between the two families. As far as the DNA project goes, it would have been a success even if the results revealed that there was no family connection.
The DNA project has cemented a family connection that was already blossoming on the internet. The matriarch of the Stotesbury-Leeson family seemed to know what the results would be long before the project results were known. She related that she had seen a photo of a Gleason ancestor that had been posted at the Gleason WEB site. She noted that it bore a striking resemblance to her late father-in-law. Had the project revealed that there was no family connection, the two families probably would have e-adopted one another anyway.
The DNA project sets forth a now known genealogical fact for future Leeson-Stotesbury and Gleason generations. In other words, folks, your very shakey assumptions are probably true - you don't have to delete the top end of your Gleason genealogy!
A side issue was also resolved by the DNA project: One of the Gleason participants had a very weak generation link supported only by a Sunday school record. It was the only clue that one of his ancestors even existed. A professional genealogist supposed that this
individual was probable, and also an important link to his Thomas Gleason (4) family line. In proving the continuity of this lineage, the DNA results validated the genealogist's supposition. Any break in a paternal line through adoption or other non-paternal event is not supported by DNA evidence. Even though the family name may continue through such discontinuity, the genetic line does not.
The DNA project suggests that Thomas Leeson (3) may be the father of Thomas Leeson (Gleason) (4) but it also remains that there may be another unknown Leeson that may be the actual father. What is important, is that the DNA project places the Gleason family firmly with roots across the big Pond and is truly related to the Leeson-Stotesbury family. This will give family historians solid ground to further investigate and document the missing pieces of how the two families are connected.
Acknowledgements:
Diahan L. Southard:
Diahan, formerly a microbiology major from Washington state, performed numerous technical tasks for the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University (BYU). Eventually she became the contact person for the Special Cases unit of the laboratory and therefore administrator for our project. When BYU released all of it Special Cases to newly formed Relative Genetics < http://www.relativegenetics.com/ > a subsidiary company of Sorenson Companies, Diahan moved with them and continued serving our project and answering our many many questions.
Scott R. Woodward, PhD
Dr. Woodward is currently a Professor of Microbiology and faculty member of the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University. He received his Ph.D. degree in genetics from Utah State University in 1984. He did postdoctoral work in molecular genetics at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Utah. While at the University of Utah he discovered a genetic marker used for the identification of carriers and the eventual discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He was also involved with the identification of other gene markers for colon cancer and neurofibromatiosis. He joined the faculty at BYU in 1989. While at BYU he has been involved with the Seila, Egypt excavation team, directing the genetic and molecular analysis of Egyptian mummies, both from a commoners' cemetery and of the Egyptian Royal mummies. His research interests include the reconstruction of ancient and modern genealogies using DNA techniques with samples from all over the world, the tracing of human population movements by following gene migrations (including both Old and New World populations) and the DNA analysis of ancient manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has been the Scholar in Residence at the BYU Center for Near Eastern Studies in Jerusalem and a visiting professor at Hebrew University. His work has been featured both nationally and internationally on numerous programs including Good Morning America, Discovery and the Learning Channels.
Our project has been very fortunate to have such quality technical oversight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)