Jane Fermor Archives - PHILIP ALAN FARMER

April 10, 2022April 10, 2022

Nicholas Fermor

The 1580 will of Thomas Fermor of Somerton gifts his “well-beloved nephew” Nicholas Fermor. Which one?

Per the 1580 will of Thomas Fermor of Somerton,

In default of such issue [of Mary or Richard, the children of Thomas], the remainder goes to my brother Jerome Farmor, according to the gift of my Uncle William Farmer of Somerton. If Richard dies without lawful issue, I give the Manor of Gannow and all [my other property] in Gannow, to my nephew Nicholas Farmer and the lawful heirs of his body…

I give a £10 pa life annuity to my well-beloved nephew Nicholas Farmor… But if and when he has acquired enough lands, tenements, annuities or fees, whether by descent, purchase, gift, grant, marriage or otherwise, to provide a clear income of £100 pa during his own or his wife’s life, the £10 annuity is to cease.[1]

Thomas also appoints his nephew George Fermor and his brother-in-laws Sir Richard Knightley, Richard Fiennes, and Sir Thomas Lucy as executors and overseers of his will. He mentions no other brother or sister.

In determining the identity of Nicholas Fermor, there are two options: the son of Sir John Fermor, or the son of Jerome Fermor.

Nicholas, son of Sir John Fermor.

Sir John Fermor married Maud Vaux, daughter of Sir Nicholas Vaux. They had the following sons: George; Nicholas; Richard; and Arthur.[2] According to Baker’s History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton (1844), Nicholas was still living in 1585 and died unmarried.

Baker’s inclusion of John’s fourth son Arthur also seems to refute the number of sons mentioned in the memorial of Sir John and Maud. It is most likely Arthur died very young and the memorial notes the number of surviving sons.

Here lie ye bodies of Sr John Farmor, of Eston Neston Knight of ye Bath and dame Maud his wife daughter of Nicholas Vaux Lord Harroden, they had 3 sonnes and three daughters and died, hee ye 20th of December MDLXXI & shee ye xivth of April MDLXIX.

Nicholas, son of Jerome Fermor.

Collins in his Peerage of England (1812) provides a synopsis of Thomas Fermor’s will and states that it “appears Nicholas Fermour, his nephew, was son of Jerome, his brother.”[3] Baker’s Northampton pedigree also indicates that Jerome and his wife Jane had issue, although none are mentioned.

If Jerome and Jane had a son Nicholas, he is not mentioned in Jerome’s 1602 will, nor Jane’s 1606 will. This may indicate that Nicholas died prior to 1602. Additionally, no mention of Nicholas is provided in the memorial to Jerome and Jane.

The memoriall of Heiro Farmore Esq. & Jane his wife they lived to-geath’r in Wedlock 42 Years, & he attended to ye honor of a great grand unckle & after 74 years left this home for a better Septb’r 7th Ao, 1602.[4]

So who is who?

One could argue that by only mentioning his brother Jerome, Thomas did intend to gift Jerome’s son Nicholas. Also, considering the verbose nature of the will, one could argue that Nicholas was married in 1580, and that Thomas did not mean should Nicholas marry. This points even further to Jerome’s son given the data above. Even the inclusion of “but if and when he has acquired enough lands, tenements, annuities or fees, whether by descent, purchase, gift, grant, marriage or otherwise” is interpreted as the time Nicholas has acquired land, not when he has married.

With Gervase Clifton, Esquire, son and heir apparent of Sir John Clifton of Bassington, Somerset, Nicholas Farmor of Hardwick assumed the £400 recusancy debt of Sir Thomas Tresham, Knight of Rushton, Northamptonshire, by a recognizance before the Exchequer barons dated 15 May 1592.[5]

A “Nicholas Farmor of Easton [Neston], co. Northampton, esquire” is mentioned in a 1594 indenture, along with Sir Richard Knightley, Sir Richard Fiennes, Valentine Knightley, Jerome Fermor, Richard Fermor “of Easton [Neston],” Sir Henry Darcy and “Dame Katheryn [Fermor] his wife,” Gabriel Pulteney, John Cope, and Thomas Thorneton.[6]

A “Nicholas Fermor, Gentleman” admitted to the Middle Temple on 02 July 1571 was most likely the son of Sir John.[7] If Jerome and Jane had married in 1560 per the calculations from their memorial, their son Nicholas would have been admitted at a minimum age of eleven.

Conclusion and further research

The conclusion is there were two nephews of Thomas Fermor named Nicholas. Jerome’s son Nicholas “of Hardwick” was gifted by Thomas and living in 1592. Sir John’s son Nicholas remained in Easton Neston and living in 1594.

Sir John and Maud may have named their child Nicholas after Maud’s father. Jerome and Jane’s son may have been named after Jane’s father and may provide insight into her identity whose coat of arms suggest she was from the Isacke family.

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” a 790-page biographical history of the Fermors from 1420 to 1685. The sequel “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh,” follows the family immigration from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

[1] Hutchens, “Will of Thomas Farmor of Somerton,” Oxfordshire Family History Society (OFHS.uk). nd.

[2] Metcalfe, The Visitations of Northamptonshire Made in 1564 and 1618-19 (1887), pp.19-20; Baker, The History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, vol.2 (1844), p.143.

[3] Brydges, Collins’s Peerage of England, vol.4 (1812) p.201.

[4] Baker, The History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, vol.2 (1844), p.332.

[5] Bowler et al, Recusants in the Exchequer Pipe Rolls, 1581-1592 (1986), p.176.

[6] Lyte, A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol.3 (1900), p.199.

[7] Martin, “Minutes of Parliament of the Middle Temple (1501-1603),” Middle Temple Records, vol.1 (1904), pp.180, 182.

April 1, 2022April 2, 2022

Jane (Isacke, Hunckes) Fermor

In determining the identity of Jerome Fermor’s wife Jane, the following information supplements what has been written in the new book Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney.

In the church at Towcester, Northamptonshire, is the memorial to Jerome and Jane Fermor who “lived togeath(er) in wedlock 42 years…” The coat of arms displayed above their kneeling effigies are of Fermor impaling Isacke.[1]

Jerome’s 1602 will bequeaths gifts to several nieces and nephews, yet provides no information to determine Jane’s identity.[2] Jane’s 1606 will names “my grandechildren John and Richard Lydcote” with John as “issue or eldest son of Ursula Lydcote, his mother, who was my only daughter…”[3]

Based on the county visitations of Buckingham, Berkshire, Surrey, and Oxford, John Lydcote married Ursula Hunckes and had issue Christopher, John, Jerome, Richard, and Mary.[4]

Ursula Hunckes is described as the daughter of John Hunckes. Per the 1569 visitation of Worcestershire along with other documentation, John Hunckes married Ursula Dyneley and Frances Cheyne, having issue with each wife.[5]

John Hunckes’ father Thomas died in 1558 seized of his Northwick property. Thomas’ eldest son and heir Robert settled the property in 1564 to his brother John. By 1583, John’s sons Robert and Thomas sold the property to their nephew William Childe, the son of William Childe and Anne Hunckes.[6]

When subtracting 42 years from Jerome’s death in 1602 or Jane’s death in 1606, their marriage calculates to sometime between 1560 and 1564. John Hunckes’ will probation and inquisition post mortem was conducted in 1572.[7] Either the memorial is incorrect, or Jane married a different John Hunckes.

It is more likely Jane Isacke married the son of John Hunckes, a priest who was brother to Thomas Hunckes (d.1558). This is based on the will of Thomas Fermor of Somerton who died in 1580. Fermor’s will gifts his brother Jerome and his “well-beloved nephew Nicholas and his wife…”[8] This timeline supports Jerome and Jane’s marriage in the 1560s.

If the pedigree is correct, Jane (Isacke, Hunckes) Fermor’s grandson John Lydcote married Mary Overbury, the sister to Sir Thomas Overbury who was poisoned to death in 1613 while imprisoned in the Tower of London.

[1] See also: MacKenzie, George Norbury. Colonial Families of the United States of America, vol.6 (1917), p.278.

[2] TNA PROB 11/100/291.

[3] TNA PROB 11/107/291.

[4] Rylands, The Visitation of the County of Buckingham Made in 1634 (1909), pp.177-178; Rylands, The Four Visitations of Berkshire (1907), pp.174-176; Bannerman, The Visitations of the County of Surrey Made and Taken in the Years 1530, 1572, and 1623 (1899), pp.199-200; Turner, The Visitations of the County of Oxford Taken in the Years 1566, 1574, and in 1634 (1871), pp.121-122.

[5] Phillimore, The Visitation of the County of Worcester Made in the Year 1569 (1888), pp.81-82. Note that the pedigree is incorrect in that there are two sons named John for Thomas Hunckes and Elizabeth Dyneley.

[6] ‘Parishes: Blockley’, in A History of the County of Worcester: Volume 3 (London, 1913), pp. 265-276. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol3/pp265-276 [accessed 1 April 2022].

[7] TNA C 142/160/73; Index of Inquisitions Preserved in the Public Record Office, vol.2 (1963), p.191.

[8] Collins, Peerage of England (1812), p.201; Hutchens, “Will of Thomas Farmor of Somerton,” Oxfordshire Family History Society (OFHS.uk). nd. Abstract provided in Blomfield, History of the Present Deanery of Bicester, Oxon (1882), pp.11-12, with citation of “the MSS of Evelyn Philip Shirley, Esq., of Ettington Hall, Warwickshire, described in the Report of the Historical MSS Commission.”

March 22, 2022March 22, 2022

Bibliography & Footnotes

The marketing for the new book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” includes a statement that a full bibliography and footnotes are included. Why is this important?

There are good publications defined by the excellent, well-researched data they provide. There are also some publications with extremely poor data, and some genealogical books that contain “data” invented by fraudsters.

Other than the prevention of plagiarism, here are other reasons why references are very important.

Interpretation of Source Records.

Frederick George Lee (1832-1902) wrote about the relationship between the Fermors and the Wenmans in his book History and Antiquities of the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame (1883). Lee makes a special note that he is correcting past genealogical mistakes, which may be the greatest argument in accepting his pedigree. This assumes Lee did not falsify his “findings” to increase book sales, as has been known to occur in recent history.

However, known source documents for the Fermor and Wenman relationships, at least up to 1501, do not support Lee’s assertions. Without the original source documentation used by Lee, the pedigree may be correct, although it does make the family tree messy with several assumptions. As the veracity of the Lee pedigree is inconclusive, it was included in the book to give it a wider audience who may be able to prove its accuracy.

Likewise, my interpretation of the source records may differ from the reader, and the source reference is included so that others may verify or refute the conclusions. My book “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh” created a little controversy. For years, family historians believed John Farmer was the father of Stephen Farmer of Harlan County and a chapter refuted this belief… complete with all bibliography and footnotes. Those same folks who sent the hate mail wrote months later to apologize after reviewing the source documents.

Traceability.

Have you researched your family tree by looking at another person’s family tree? You know that feeling you get when you question the validity of that tree because there are no source documents? For many family genealogists, the hallmark of any great family tree or a genealogical book is its original source documentation and traceability.

John Burke’s publications are an excellent start for genealogical research. Because Burke obtained the information from the families, the reliability can vary, especially as families contributed to one edition or publication, but not another, or contributed false information. This practice is very common with today’s digital genealogy and “open source” websites. As families died off, or no longer contributed, or as paragraphs were reduced to add more persons of interest, the earliest editions of Burke’s series provide better, more descriptive information. Note that Burke very seldom includes the reference to the source document.

Fraud Prevention.

There are instances in which a multitude of history books are written solely on the basis of outright false information from one source. Such may be the case with Jane Fermor, the daughter of Sir George Fermor, in which much of her maligned life originates from a discredited, unpublished “history” manuscript of scandalous falsehoods, and from an author of a family memoir who may have used it as inspiration, yet the information has been repeated in practically every history book since 1737.

The claim that Lady Jane (Fermor) Killigrew was a pirate may have begun with William Hals’ unpublished Compleat History of Cornwall, first started in 1685 and continued until 1736, until Hals died in 1737. The second part of his work was published in 1750 as Complete History of Cornwall, Part II being the Parochial History whereas the first part contained so many scandalous details that prevented its publication. However, Hals’ work did form the basis of Davies’ Parochial History of Cornwall together with additional efforts from Thomas Tonkins.

“There appears to be but little doubt that Hals was rather a scandalmonger, and also seems to have had some private grudge against the Killigrews, and in fact almost every other Cornish family, and the story has therefore been discredited by subsequent historians…”[1]

Likewise, being so very closely the same and with almost the exact same wording as George Calvert’s final petition for his colony in present Maryland, historians have suggested that Sir Edmund Plowden’s final petition for his colony of New Albion in present Maryland was a forged copy. Other research and evidence, including its location on two 1651 maps by Virginia Farrer (pictured above) and her brother John Farrer, have proven that his patent was not a fraud.

Mistakes.

Barnabas O’Brien married Mary (Fermor) Crichton, the youngest daughter of Sir George Fermor and Mary Curzon. Maurice Lenihan in his book Limerick; Its History and Antiquities (1884) incorrectly states he married “Mary, youngest daughter of Sir James [sic] Fermor, Knight, lineal descendant [sic] of the Barons Lempster, Earls of Pomfret…”[2]

Additionally, the Heralds’ visitations offer significant data for building family trees of ancestors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Supplementing their data with other documentation will sometimes show that even those pedigrees have errors or omissions. Have you noticed how some arguments in online genealogy chat forums originate from the use of one source without consideration that we’re all human and we all make mistakes?

The full bibliography and footnotes included in the book are tool and a key reminder for genealogists studying all pedigrees, family trees, and publications, to always verify… and then verify again.

[1] Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), p.283; Pearce, “Hals, William,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol.24 (1890), pp.123-124. For a reprint of Hals’ account, reference: 1) Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), pp.282-283; & 2) Baring-Gould, Cornish Characters and Strange Events (1909), pp.135-137.

[2] Lenihan, Limerick; Its History and Antiquities (1884), p.157.

January 23, 2022January 23, 2022

Jane Fermor, Pirate? Arrgh.

History has been unkind to Jane Fermor Killigrew (1583-1648), daughter of Sir George Fermor and Mary Curson. Pirate? Prostitute? Affair? Divorce?

Jane Fermor, the daughter of Sir George Fermor and Mary Curson, was baptized on 28 October 1583, and married at the age of twelve on 08 October 1596 to Sir John Killigrew V of Arwenack, Cornwall, son of John Killigrew IV and Dorothy Monck.[1]

History has not been kind to Jane. According to a heavily embellished story reprinted here,

LADY JANE, the widow of Sir John Killigrew, sat in one of the windows of Arwenick house, looking out upon the troubled waters of Falmouth Harbour. A severe storm had prevailed for some days, and the Cornish coast was strewn with wrecks. The tempest had abated; the waves were subsiding, though they still beat heavily against the rocks. A light scud was driving over the sky, and a wild and gloomy aspect suffused all things. There was a sudden outcry amongst a group of men, retainers of the Killigrew family, which excited the attention of Lady Jane Killigrew. She was not left long in suspense as to the cause. In a few minutes two Dutch ships were seen coming into the harbour. They had evidently endured the beat of the storm, for they were both considerably disabled; and with the fragments of sail which they carried, they laboured heavily. At length, however, these vessels were brought round within the shelter of Pendennis; their anchors were cast in good anchoring-ground; and they were safe, or at least the crew thought so, in comparatively smooth water.

As was the custom in those days, the boat belonging to the Killigrew family, manned by the group of whom we have already spoken, went off as soon as the ships were anchored and boarded them. They then learnt that they were of the Hanse Towns, laden with valuable merchandise for Spain, and that this was in the charge of two Spanish factors. On the return of the boat’s crew, this was reported to Lady Killigrew; and she, being a very wicked and most resolute woman, at once proposed that they should return to the ships, and either rob them of their treasure, or exact from the merchants a large sum of money in compensation. The rude men, to whom wrecking and plundering was but too familiar, were delighted with the prospect of a rare prize; and above all, when Lady Killigrew declared that she would herself accompany them, they were wild with joy.

With great shouting, they gathered together as many men as the largest boat in the harbour would carry, and armed themselves with pikes, swords, and daggers. Lady Jane Killigrew, also armed, placed herself in the stem of the boat after the men had crowded into their places, and with a wild huzzah they left the shore, and were soon alongside of the vessel nearest to the shore. A number of the men immediately crowded up the side and on to the deck of this vessel, and at once seized upon the captain and the factor, threatening them with instant death if they dared to make any outcry. Lady Jane Killigrew was now lifted on to the deck of the vessel, and the boat immediately pushed off, and the remainder of the crew boarded the other ship.

The Dutch crew were overpowered by the numbers of Cornishmen, who were armed far more perfectly than they. Taken unawares as they were, at a moment when they thought their troubles were for a season at an end, the Dutchmen were almost powerless.

The Spaniards were brave men, and resisted the demands made to deliver up their treasure. This resistance was, however, fatal to them. At a signal, it is said by some, given by their leader, Lady Jane Killigrew, – although this was denied afterwards, – they were both murdered by the ruffians into whose hands they had fallen, and their bodies cast overboard into the sea.

These wretches ransacked the ships, and appropriated whatsoever they pleased, while Lady Jane took from them “two hogsheads of Spanish pieces of eight, and converted them to her own use.”

As one of the Spanish factors was dying, he lifted his hands to heaven, prayed to the Lord to receive his soul, and turning to the vile woman to whose villainy he owed his death, he said, “My blood will linger with you until my death is avenged upon your own sons.”

This dreadful deed was not allowed to pass without notice even in those lawless times. The Spaniards were then friendly with England, and upon the representation made by the Spanish minister to the existing government, the sheriff of Cornwall was ordered to seize and bring to trial Lady Jane Killigrew and her crew of murderers. A considerable number were arrested with her; and that lady and several of her men were tried at Launceston.

Since the Spaniards were proved to be at the time of the murder “foreigners under the Queen’s protection,” they were all found guilty, and condemned to death.

All the men were executed on the walls of Launceston Castle; but by the interest of Sir John Arundell and Sir Nicholas Hals, Queen Elizabeth was induced to grant a pardon for Lady Jane.[2]

In every instance of the various versions of this story, neither the date, the names of the ships, the names of those involved, nor other details are mentioned. These missing details are early indications that it is probably more myth than truth, and upon further investigation, the story is completely false and essentially based on Mary (Wolverston) Killigrew’s act of piracy in January 1583 before the death of Sir John Killigrew III in 1584.[3]

While the history books have maligned Jane for her “atrocious” piracy, nothing compares to the disparaging remarks from Martin Lister-Killigrew, heir of Sir John Killigrew’s estate.

But this worthy gentleman, ye last Sir John Killigrew, was hardly got over this difficulty, when he fell under a much greater Affliction, as aforementioned, the Prostitution of his Wife; who caused herself to be called, or unaccountably was known by ye name of, Lady Jane. Arrived to that shameful degree, Sir John, in point of honor and for quietness of mind, found himself under a necessity to prosecute a divorce from her in ye Archbishop’s Court, which lasted so many years and so very expensive, as quite Ruined his Estate, to ye degree of his being often put to very hard Shifts to get home from London upon ye frequent recesses of ye process, but at length obtained ye Divorce in all its formal Extent…[4]

But was there an affair, and was there a divorce? For the town of Penryn, the story continues for almost 400 years.

Excerpted from the upcoming book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney,” a 767-page historical account of the Fermor / Farmar / Farmer family from 1420 to 1685.

[1] Vivian, The Visitations of Cornwall, Comprising the Heralds’ Visitations of 1530, 1573, & 1620 (1887), pp.268-269. Sir John Killigrew V, son of Dorothy Monck and John Killigrew IV (d. 1605), son of Mary Wolverston and Sir John Killigrew III (d. 1584), son of Elizabeth Trewynard and John Killigrew II (d. 1567), son of Jane Petit and John Killigrew (d. 1536).

[2] Timbs et al, Abbeys, Castles, and Ancient Halls of England and Wales; South (1872), pp.529-531. For other variations, reference in addition to many other publications: 1) Davies, The Parochial History of Cornwall, vol.2 (1838), p.6; 2) Redding, An Illustrated Itinerary of the County of Cornwall (1842), p.134; 3) Salmon, Cornwall, ed.2 (1905); 4) Hitchins et al, The History of Cornwall, vol.2 (1824), p.291; & 4) Lysons et al, Magna Britannia, vol.3 (1814), p.120.

[3] Gay, Old Falmouth (1903), p.15. The attribution to Lady Jane may have begun with William Hals’ unpublished Compleat History of Cornwall, first started in 1685 and continued until 1736, until Hals died in 1737. The second part of his work was published in 1750 as Complete History of Cornwall, Part II being the Parochial History whereas the first part contained so many scandalous details that prevented its publication. However, Hals’ work did form the basis of Davies’ Parochial History of Cornwall together with additional efforts from Thomas Tonkins (Pearce, “Hals, William,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol.24 (1890), pp.123-124.) “There appears to be but little doubt that Hals was rather a scandalmonger, and also seems to have had some private grudge against the Killigrews, and in fact almost every other Cornish family, and the story has therefore been discredited by subsequent historians…” (Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), p.283.) For a reprint of Hals’ account, reference: 1) Whitley, “Dame Killigrew and the Spanish Ship,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.7 no.27 (1883), pp.282-283; & 2) Baring-Gould, Cornish Characters and Strange Events (1909), pp.135-137.

[4] Worth, “The Family of Killigrew,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, vol.3 no.12 (April 1871), pp.272-273. Martin Lister (1666-1745) married Anne Killigrew, daughter of Frances Twysden and Sir Peter Killigrew (ca.1634-1705), the son of Mary Lucas and Sir Peter Killigrew (ca.1593-1668), the brother and heir of Sir John Killigrew (1583-1633), Jane’s ex-husband. Mary Lucas was the daughter of Elizabeth Leighton and Sir Thomas Lucas II, the son of Sir Thomas Lucas and Mary Fermor, the daughter of Maud Vaux and Sir John Fermor who were the parents of Sir George Fermor, father to Jane Fermor. As part of his wife’s inheritance, Martin adopted the Killigrew surname. His family memoir was written in 1737 by Edward Snoxell, acting secretary for Killigrew, with Killigrew’s contributions. (“Lecture on ‘Extinct Cornish Families,’” The Royal Cornwall Gazette, no.4510 (13 March 1890), p.6.