GENEALOGY ~ In the beginning were the Stotesbury/Leesons

This post shall be the first of several concerning the American Gleason family.

Our Ancestry site called "Gleason Footprints" was challenged by the son, Will, of Margaret Stotesbury-Leeson of Canada to show that we American Gleasons were at all related to the ancient Leeson family of Sulgrave, England. The results of DNA testing proved a direct connection to a common ancestor between the Stotesbury-Leesons and three of our documented lines of English Gleasons.... not to be confused with Irish lines using the same name.

Thus we became computer friends which resulted in Margaret providing us with valuable information concerning our family. Note that more recently I found information in Bond which shows that our patriarch, Thomas Gleason, b.1607 in Sulgrave (including wife Susannah and two children) was still known under the name Leeson.  So the Gleason name was taken while living here in the Massachusetts colony.

What follows is a letter from Margaret commenting on a document I had found about Sulgrave.

Dear Allan
Will just told me today that on Sept. 6, you had sent him the "Sulgrave Document".   I didn't do any of the things you suggested; rather, I clicked on it and printed it out, and it raised some questions.   Before I try to deal with some of them, Willard isn't Will's first name; he's William-not after King Billie on his white horse (he was supposed to be born on July 12, but procrastinated until July 21!), but after Sir William Leeson, the last Papal Knight in my late husband's family in a collateral branch.

The Nottingham Leesons are ours as are the Yorkshire ones (from the latter comes the late Bishop of Peterborough, Spencer etc.) but I am not quite sure how.   The wife of the (probably late) Bishop Hughes of Trinidad and Tobago in the 1960's-?1970's was also a Yorkshire Leeson. My husband always referred to Spencer etc. Peterborough as his cousin. Many thanks for the info from Bridges, edited by Whalley.   It's nearly 40 years since I read him last.

As to Sulgrave, my husband said there were 5 manors there, not 3, and that before Thomas Leeson sold Sulgrave to his cousin, Lawrence Washington, for a short time all 5, for the first and last time in their history, belonged to one family, namely us.   But perhaps by 'us', he meant 'Leesons and their relations' which would include the Pargiters and the Washingtons. By the way, my e-mail address is "mslasgaard@sympatico.ca". I'll talk to you later when I've had a chance to go over the material in detail.


"THE STORY OF STUCHBURY
Compiled by Allenby Stuchbery.

Stuchbury, village of a thousand years, is situated between Sulgrave, Helmdon and Greatworth in the county of Northamptonshire.

Its antiquity certainly dates back to the time of William the Conqueror, for when he ordered a census of peoples and properties to assess his possessions, it was recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 that Stuchbury or Stoteberri had ten inhabitants.

It should perhaps be pointed out that the name Stuchbury has gone through many stages and generally was spelt phonetically until well into the nineteenth century. So one finds that Stuchbury had many spellings such as:
Stoteberri   Domesday Book, 1086
Stutsbiria   1155-1158
Stotesbury   1230
Stuttebyri   Episcopal Registers
Stuksburg   ????
Stuttesbury   Ordnance Survey
Stuchbury   Present time

Small wonder that the Stuchbery family name has many spellings.   Indeed, in one register the same vicar gave different spellings to the surname of brother and sister.

The Lordship of Stuchbury, now in the Hundreds of Kings Sutton,   contains about 1023 acres. Nowadays it is largely arabIe and pastural land which has a small wood or fox covert and a permanent stream in its midst. There are three large stone homes set at a distance from each other whilst the Cottages, Stuchbury, stand at the entrance. Elms,oak, beech, ash and the occasional chestnut tree dot the countryside which is divided into hedge lined fields extending through Stuchbury, which seems to run from Sulgrave to Helmdon, a distance of three miles.

Part of Stuchbury was occupied for many centuries by an order of the Cluniac Monastery of St. Andrew. This was made possible by the Earl of Huntingdon, who, as Simon de Liz, married Maud, greatniece of William the Conqueror. To celebrate this event he gave two hides of land (about 120 acres) to the Cluniac Order, who replenished it with monks from the Abbey of St. Mary de Caritate upon the Loire in France.

Although in Bridges'   "Histories and Antiquities of Northamptonshire", reference is made to Adam de Stutesbirie (1232), William de Stutesbury (1334), John de Stutesbury (1396) and Henry de Stutesbury in 1457, it appears that their association with the Stuchbury family was that of being ecclesiastical neighbours. For part of that period the Stuchbery family owned land adjacent to the Priory. 

Around about 1350 John Stotesbury purchased from Henry de Elington the manor, which he had established as Elington Manor of Sulgrave. During his ownership, John Stotesbury encroached upon the land of the Priory for firewood and received a court action from the Prior for his trouble.The court action, whether successful or not, certainly did not cause the Stotesbury family to lose either their heads or their land, as the male line continued in unbroken succession for two hundred years with the following family tree:

John Stotesbury - 1359
Thomas Stotesbury
John Stotesbury - 1413
John Stotesbury
John Stuttesbury
John       Edward               Thomas

It was Thomas Stuttesbury who was the last male Stuttesbury or Stuchbery to own a considerable part of Stuchbury. He is recorded as having a thousand sheep on Stuchbury Pastures in 1547.

Of interest is Thomas Stuttesbury's association with Laurence Washington who established(purchased from Henry VIII in 1537ish) Sulgrave Manor. Together they bought from churchwardens, John Humfrey and John Mayo, the Sanctus Bell of Sulgrave Church for the sum of 16 pounds. As a labourer received about 3d. per day, this was indeed a considerable sum of money which was used for repairing "highewayes and fordes.". The bell still hangs in Sulgrave Church, as they never had it removed, nor, probably, was it even intended. It was, perhaps. a subtle way of making a donation. (ref. Sulgrave Manor and the Washingtons)

Laurence Washington was the great-grandfather to the great-grandfather of George Washington of American Independence fame. Today, Sulgrave Manor is owned conjointly by the British and American Governments, and is a place of pilgrimage for American tourists.

Sulgrave Manor went from Laurence to Robert Washington, whilst Thomas Stuttesbury left his estate to Susan, who married Robert Leeson de Whitfield, with whose other property it remained for several generations.

It would appear that Thomas Stuttesbury's brothers, John and Edward, had no claim as there is no further information about them excepting John's marriage to Bridget of Ashwell, three miles to the east of Stuchbury.

There were other Stuchberys in the StuchburylSulgrave area, as in the reign following Henry VII, the Manor of Evenle was in the hands of William Stuttesbury. His successor was Thomas Stuttesbury, who left it to William Stuttesbury in the fifth year of Edward VI. From this gentleman it descended in the fourth year of Queen Mary's reign. to Michael Stuttesbury, his son, who was "certified to hold it with two messuages, two cottages, three hundred acres of pasture, forty acres of meadow, two acres of wood and rent. from tenancies for the service of part of a knights fee, and the yearly payment of nine shillings".

It would appear that when Henry VIII dissolved the monastic orders and priories throughout the land, the Church of St. John and its rectory were pulled down. It is said that some of the stone was used for the construction of Stuchbury Hall. The circular stones, certainly not grinding stones, incorporated into the garden area at the rear, lend much to that opinion. So about the same time, in the mid 16th century, both residents for several hundred years, Monks of the Cluniac Order and the Stuchberys left Stuchbury.

The next we hear of the Stuchbery family is around Buckingham where sufficient information is available for its own story.

Meanwhile, the village of Stuchbury, which, at different times throughout the centuries, was quite substantial, judging by the mounds left by wattle and daub cottages, settled down to a style of work associated with the four stone dwellings named Stuchbury Hall, Stuchbury Lodge, Stuchbury Manor Farm and Stuchbury House.

Stuchbury House was lived in until 40 years ago but is exceedingly difficult to find now, as it is overgrown with vines and blackberries in its return to the earth. However, beneath all this are the granite foundations set above a continuously running stream, and although hidden, they will be there for years to come.

Stuchbury Hall has been farmed by the Tims family for some generations, with Mr. & Mrs. Michael Tims being in residence there now.   Stuchbury Lodge is farmed by Mr. & Mrs. David Thame, whilst at Stuchbury Manor Farm, Mr. & Mrs. Les Fange are in retirement after farming there for thirty years.

There are brief notations of Stuchbury set out in a book called Deserted Villages of Northamptonshire. References are made to populations throughout the centuries since the number of 10 in 1086 and generally are between twenty and thirty, although at one time, before the 13th and 14th centuries, there were considerably more.   In 1977 the population is twenty-five, and judging by the type of farming pursued at Stuchbury, this figure is not likely to be exceeded in the years to come."

When I visited Stuchbury in October 1996, we were only able to see a small portion of the manor, three houses on the road (really a driveway or farm road)down from the Helmdon Road and Sulgrave.   There are some meadows with cattle, but that's about all.   I took a few pictures, I may upload a couple next week when I get my cable modem. 
   
Reply: Read what others had to say:
Howard Gleason - Sep 19, 1999
    Well done Bob.
   
Margaret Stotesbury-Leeson - Sep 22, 1999 
    Hi, Bob Gleason
It's Margaret Stotesbury-Leeson of the Leesons of Whitfield and Sulgrave.
I'll try again to reply to your interesting info on Stutchbury Manor.   I hope this time I won't loose my reply as I did before (my Robert said to hit something on the computer and it wasn't the right something.)
Our family has always spelled the name with an "o"- not a "u".   It is also spelled "Stottisbury" as in one of my late husband's Christian names, and in that of his cousin, Spencer Gwatkin Stottisbury Leeson, the late Bishop of Peterborough.
My late husband, Lawrence, was descended from Thomas Stotesbury (the 1547 one), whose granddaughter, Susan, married Robert Leeson.   As she was her grandfather's heraldic heir, Robert, on the marriage got both the Stotesbury Arms and Name to accompany them-an early form of women's lib?   My elder children are Susan Jane Elizabeth, and Robert Edward Cromwell.   Will is my youngest.   Nothing like sticking to family names.
All the Stotesburys/Stuchburys around Stuchbury were descended from Thomas's brothers or other younger and/or cadet lines.
Not only the Stotesburys but the contemporary Leesons sued/were sued by the Prior of St. Andrews; it seemed to be a family hobby-they were a right litigenous lot (as was my husband-he came by it honestly!)
I think that is all for now.   I'll try to send this.
Best wishes, Margaret.

   
  - Sep 26, 1999
    Hi Margaret(Cuz?):

You're not the only one hitting the wrong gizmos. I've been offline since Wednesday trying to get my cable modem setup sorted out, so this reply is mainly to get the word out to "family" that I'm off E-mail and somewhat limited in communication. That said, I hope you honest-to-God Leesons are enjoying the contacts as much as we pretenders are. We were pretty much convinced that there were none of you left. Hope we can show some connection somewhere and make it official.