Tag: Sir George Fermor

Posted on

“Remember, Remember… the Fifth of November”

Among the many plots to assassinate the monarch, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was the closest to succeeding. Many of the descendants of Thomas Richards alias Fermor had a role. The following is excerpted and edited from the book, Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney.

King James I & VI

King James I & VI and Sir George Fermor

After the death of Queen Elizabeth on 24 March 1603, James VI of Scotland, her nearest relative, seemed most likely to inherit the throne. However, a statute dated 1351 prevented foreigners from being heirs to English land and Henry VIII’s will of 1547 forbade Scottish relations from inheriting the throne. Despite the uncertainty and complications, James VI of Scotland ascended the throne on 24 March as James I, King of England and Ireland, known as the Union of the Crowns.

On 25 June the king set out from Windsor, and on 27 June 1603 arrived at Sir George Fermor’s home at Easton Neston.[1] Meanwhile, the queen, Anne of Denmark, was travelling from Scotland toward London with their eldest son, the young Prince Henry, and her household.

The royal visit to Easton Neston may have had a more political motive. Sir George by marriage, acquaintance, and political connection was intimately aware of the persecution endured by Catholics during the forty-five year reign of Queen Elizabeth, as well as the ongoing recusant activities that continued to endanger the lives around him. Sir George, with his political experience in arbitrating disputes, may have played a leading part in voicing to the new sovereign the hopes in offering tolerance toward Catholics.

As the son of Mary Queen of Scots, James was baptized as a Catholic, but was raised as a Protestant while his mother was imprisoned. Hopes were high that James would implement a policy of religious toleration when he promised not to prosecute any “that will be quiet, and give but an outward obedience to the law, neither will I spare to advance any of them that will by good service worthily deserve it.”[2] As observed by a Catholic woman in Oxfordshire who said, “Now we have a king who is of our religion and will restore us to our rights.”[3]

Main Plot & Bye Plot

While Sir George was entertaining the new king and queen, a disagreement among Catholics led William Watson to conspire with Sir Griffin Markham, Sir George Brooke, and Anthony Copley to overthrow James and seat Lady Arabella Stuart[4] on 24 June. Fearing retribution if the “Bye Plot” should fail, George Blackwell and two Jesuit priests, John Gerrard and Henry Garnet, informed the authorities in June 1603, and the plot was foiled. During the investigation, another conspiracy led by Sir George’s brother, Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham, was uncovered in July 1603, again to replace James with Lady Arabella Stuart, who was also Cobham’s cousin. Sir Griffin Markham and Sir Walter Raleigh were imprisoned in the Tower of London for their participation in the “Main Plot.”

While the Main and Bye Plots were relatively minor, James’ councilors pressed him on the grave political danger Catholics presented. All hopes of religious tolerance quickly disappeared on 19 February 1604 when the king denounced the Catholic Church and instructed that the recusancy fines be collected. Three days later, James banished all Jesuits and Catholic priests to leave the country. This prompted a call to action from a very displeased Robert Catesby of Ashby St. Ledger, Northamptonshire.

Robert Catesby

Robert Catesby

Robert Catesby invited Thomas Wintour and John Wright to his house in Lambeth to discuss a plan of re-establishing Catholicism in England. Their plan:  blow up the House of Lords during the state opening of Parliament next year on 05 November 1605.

Wintour, who had served for Lord Monteagle, and whose uncle, Father Francis Ingleby, was hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 02 June 1586 for being a priest, then travelled to Flanders to inquire about Spanish support. While there, he sought out Guido “Guy” Fawkes, a committed Catholic who had served as a soldier, engineer, and gunpowder expert in southern Netherlands.

Wintour later recruited Thomas Percy, Robert Keyes (son of a Protestant rector), Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour (brother of Thomas Wintour), Christopher Wright (brother of John Wright), John Grant (who had married Dorothy Wintour, the sister of Thomas and Robert), Ambrose Rookwood, and Sir Everard Digby. On 14 October 1604, Catesby invited Francis Tresham.

All thirteen of them, with exception to Bates, were “gentlemen of name and blood.”[5]

Gunpowder Plot

The wives of the plotters became increasingly concerned by what they suspected was about to happen. On Saturday, 26 October 1605, Tresham’s brother-in-law, William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, received an anonymous letter.

The letter was shown to the king on Friday, 01 November, following his return to London. Upon reading it, James immediately seized upon the word “blow” and felt that it hinted at “some strategem of fire and powder.” This led to two searches of the newly leased cellar directly under the House of Lords.

Around midnight on 4/5 November, Fawkes, still using the alias John Johnson, was discovered in an undercroft, dressed in a cloak and hat, wearing boots and spurs, and carrying a lantern. He was arrested and a search revealed a pocket watch, several slow matches, and touchwood. Thirty-six barrels of gunpowder Fawkes had moved there by March 1605 were discovered hidden under piles of wood and coal.

Agnes (Fermor) Wenman

Sir Richard and Agnes (Fermor) Wenman

Sir George and Lady Mary Fermor happened “by accident” to stop at Harrowden on Wednesday, 06 November, and tell Elizabeth (Roper) Vaux what had happened in London. Sir George was there to inquire about a letter Vaux sent to his daughter Agnes Wenman around Easter (after the gunpowder had been collected and stored.)

The letter had been intercepted by Agnes’ mother-in-law, Lady Jane Tasburgh, who had given it to her son Sir Richard Wenman. Vaux’s comment to Agnes that “Tottenham would soon turn French” convinced many that Vaux knew about and supported the plot. Vaux confessed she wrote the letter, but of course, insisted she had no recollection of the letter’s contents, except the reference to turning French.

British School; Richard Wenman (1573-1640), 1st Viscount Wenman; Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru / The National Library of Wales; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/richard-wenman-15731640-1st-viscount-wenman-120336

The authorities arrested Sir Richard and his wife Agnes, who were questioned separately in December 1605. Agnes was released after a short confinement in custody. On 03 December, Sir Richard testified that he “disliked their intercourse, because Mrs. Vaux tried to pervert his wife.” He also strongly disapproved of his wife’s company of friends, particularly John Gerard, who probably had some mutual animosity as he would describe Sir Richard in his 1609 autobiography as “a knight with a large estate, who hoped one day to become a baron, and is still hoping…”[6]

On 05 December, Chief Justice John Popham instructed Sir Richard to “send up the letters written to his wife by Mrs. Vaux and Lady Fermor, with a true account, from those who saw Mrs. Vaux’s letter, of its contents.”[7] By the end of the day, Sir Richard had complied. According to Agnes,

I. Examination of Agnes Lady Wenman. She kept Mrs. Vaux’s letter at first, to shew it to her husband, because she was angry with her mother-in-law, Lady Tasburgh, for opening it, but has lost or burnt it since; her mother [Lady Fermor] wrote to ask her to send it, or a copy of it, to Mrs. Vaux, who had heard that she was called in question for it, but she could not; it was chiefly about Lord Vaux’s marriage with Lady Suffolk’s daughter, and about the disgrace of the Catholics; adding, “Notwithstanding pray, for Tottenham may turne French.”

Relationship of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators and the descendants of Thomas Richards alias Fermor. Click to enlarge.

Elizabeth (Roper) Vaux

The 07 December examination of Elizabeth (Roper) Vaux and Sir George Fermor’s testimony at Easton Neston begins with Sir Edward Coke to the Earl of Salisbury,

The last declaration of Faukes is safe, and herewith I send it to you. I have observed out of Mrs. Vaux’s and Sir George Fearmor’s examinations such things as I think fit, which also I send unto you, because it may be you will think it fit that Sir George be re-examined and that the letter written to the Lady Weyneman (who lies now in child-bed) be sent for…

Endorsed:  1605. Mr. Attorney General, with observations concerning Mrs. Vaux and Sir George Farmour.

[Enclosure, endorsed in Coke’s handwriting] “My observations concerning Mrs. Vaux and Sir Geo. Fearmor”[8]

Elizabeth would testify that Sir George relayed reports that it should have been performed by five Scots. Sir George would testify that he was angry with Elizabeth for it was she who had sent for him that Wednesday to tend to her son Edward in London, but then changed her mind, and it was she who first told him about the news after hearing it from a servant.[9]

Sir George had requested a copy of the infamous letter, but it was “lost.”

My Lady Tasburgh being examined goes further that there was contained in that letter that Mrs. Vaux persuaded the Lady Wayneman to be of good comfort and not to destroy (sic), for ere it were long there should be a remedy or a toleration for religion, and that the Lady Tasburgh said there was treason in the letter; and that since Mrs. Vaux went to the Lady Weynman in Oxfordshire and willed her to keep the letter for both their discharges…[10]

Aftermath

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 put a decisive end to further discussions of religious toleration and was the last real major plot by a radical Catholic faction.

Swayed by the threat of treason, the public applauded a policy of repression with penal laws against recusants enlarged to included women and then enforced with greater vigor. Catholics were forbidden to appear at Court, despite the fact that the queen, Anne of Denmark, had recently converted to Catholicism. They were banned from coming within ten miles of London and had to remain within five miles of their homes, unless granted a special license. They were excluded from many professions, including medicine and the law. All holders of public office were now required to take Communion annually according to the Anglican rite. The penalties for secret Catholic baptisms were increased by an additional £100 fine. It was also illegal for Catholics to hold the patronage of Anglican benefices, and Catholic landowners who had retained these ancient rights from pre-Reformation times found them divided between Oxford University and Cambridge University. The 1606 Oath of Allegiance contained a declaration that the Pope had no political authority in England, which most Catholics and the Archpriest of England agreed and signed, but as the wording could also be construed as rejecting the Pope’s spiritual authority, the Pope condemned it and replaced the Archpriest.[11]

It was assumed Catholics would become submissive and cease to be a problem to the authorities. In the years following the Gunpowder Plot recusants lost none of their resolve and unyieldingly adhered to their faith. For most recusants, they had no choice but to endure their persecution in silence and pay their recusancy fines without complaint or redress.[12] Sir George Fermor was observed on 09 April 1610 “at the sermon at Towcester.”[13] Although Sir Richard Wenman was cleared of any part in the plot, he was removed from the commission of the peace for many years.

Today, the “Guy Fawkes” mask is used worldwide during protests, particularly those where public opinion is swayed by the idea of government conspiracy or overreach of authority.

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” tracing the family history from 1420 to 1685, and “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh” following their 1685 arrival from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

[1] Baker, A Chronicle of the Kings of England (1733), p.403; Echard, The History of England, ed.3 (1720), p.378; Tighe et al, Annals of Windsor, vol.2 (1858), pp.48-49; Chester, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley (1878), p.111. Other accounts have Sir George Fermor entertaining King James and Queen Anne at Easton Neston 11 June 1603. The king and queen would visit with Sir George Fermor again in October 1604 to reunite with their son Prince Charles, Duke of Albany.

[2] Hankins, “Papists, Power, and Puritans:  Catholic Officeholding and the Rise of the ‘Puritan Faction’ in Early-Seventeenth-Century Essex,” The Catholic Historical Review, vol.95 no.4 (October 2009), p.697.

[3] Hadland, Thames Valley Papists, From Reformation to Emancipation, 1534-1829 (April 2004), p.82.

[4] Lady Arabella Stuart (1575-1615), the only child of Elizabeth Cavendish and Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, secretly married William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset, the son of Katherine Grey and Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Hertford, the son of Anne Stanhope and Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, who also had a daughter, Elizabeth Seymour, who married Sir Richard Knightley after the death of Mary Fermor, daughter of Anne Browne and Richard Fermor. Anthony Copley, son of Sir Thomas Copley, was brother to Margaret Copley who married Sir John Gage, and their son Sir Thomas Gage married a descendant of Thomas Richards alias Fermor… Mary Chamberlain, daughter of Sir John Chamberlain and Katherine Plowden.

[5] Spink, The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle’s Letter (1902), p.21.

[6] Davidson et al, “Wenman, Sir Richard (c.1573-1640), of Thame Park, Oxon. and Twyford, Bucks,” The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629 (2010); Harding, “Wenman, Sir Richard (1573-1640), of Thame Park, Oxon. and Twyford, Bucks,” The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558-1603 (1981).

[7] Green, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610 (1857), pp.265-277.

[8] Giuseppi, Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, vol.17 (1938), pp.554-570.

[9] Green, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610 (1857), pp.265-277; Giuseppi, Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, vol.17 (1938), pp.554-570. The latter stating, “All which is denied by [Sir George Fearmor struck out] Mrs. Vaux…”

[10] Giuseppi, Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, vol.17 (1938), pp.554-570.

[11] Hadland, Thames Valley Papists, From Reformation to Emancipation, 1534-1829 (April 2004), p.87.

[12] Owen, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable The Marquess of Salisbury Preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, pt.14 (1976), pp.vii-viii.

[13] Rowse, Sir Walter Rallegh, His Family and Private Life (1962), p.298.

Posted on

Major Jasper Farmar: Father At 62?

Is it possible for a father to have a son in his senior years? Recently in the news, Al Pacino, age 83, welcomed his fourth child Roman with actress Noor Alfallah, age 29. A month ago, Robert De Niro, age 79, welcomed his seventh child with girlfriend Tiffany Chen.

Many times in building a family tree, age is a factor in identifying the right parents. This is especially true when the grandfather, father, and/or son shares the same name.

Normally, we apply today’s timelines in our biases. For example, let’s assume we are building a tree for John Smith. A record has John Smith born to Joe Smith, the father of another Joe Smith. However, this record may indicate Joe Smith was 80 years old when his son John was born. Our biases would cause us to think that Joe Smith the younger is the more likely father.

This biased thinking also tricks us into adding non-existent persons into our tree. For example, John Smith is born to Joe Smith, but unlike the example above, there is no Joe Smith Jr. Our biased thinking says that surely Joe Smith didn’t have a son at the age of 80, so it must be a son that we don’t know about… and so we add a Joe Smith Jr. to the tree.

Such is the case for Edward Farmar of Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, the son of Major Jasper Farmar.

Edward Farmar was born in 1672 when Major Jasper was 62 years old. For some, the age difference doesn’t seem correct, so there must have been two Major Jasper’s. Or for some, Major Jasper’s father Robert was not the son of Sir George Fermor, but rather the son of yet another Robert Farmar. Adding the extra Robert or the extra Major Jasper makes our biased timelines seem more “correct.”

This biased thinking seems even more plausible when considering Major Jasper’s wife, Mary Gamble. How can Mary born in 1614 have a son at the age of 58?

She didn’t. When Mary Gamble died, Major Jasper remarried in 1671 to widow Mary Batsford, age 36. We know this from the birth dates of Edward’s siblings, his Farmar half-siblings, as well as legal documents of his Batsford half-siblings. Yet family trees will show Major Jasper had one wife, and name her Mary Gamble Batsford.

The moral of the story is that adding extra persons in our tree to make our biased timelines “correct” only creates more brick walls for ourselves and other family historians, especially when a deep dive of available records proves otherwise.

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” tracing the family history from 1420 to 1685, and “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh” following their 1685 arrival from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

Posted on

Farmer Coat of Arms

In an earlier blog, we highlighted the fascination that two characters from William Shakespeare’s play had with a coat of arms. Even today, there is a modern fascination with wanting to display family heraldry. You see it on family trees, or with companies selling you a certificate or coffee mug. Regrettably, some of these companies and genealogists are assigning the wrong coat of arms. This blog examines various Farmer family heraldry and how it can be used to build a good family tree.

When the Heralds convened their county visitations, they called “all persons that do pretend to bear arms or are styled Esquires or Gentlemen… to produce and show forth by what authority they do challenge and claim the same.”[1] Families or their agents arrived and provided documentation of their family pedigree. Additionally, the Heralds documented the arms displayed at the churches, universities, and other houses. Those persons who could not defend their claim or stole the arms were shamed in the market square and the wrongfully displayed arms were pulled down or defaced. When the Heralds visited Shropshire in 1623, Edward Farmer of Brome, John Farmer, and Roger Farmer were disclaimed.[2]

The visitations provide a good source of genealogical data; however, the Heralds’ abilities to take good notes, the abilities of families to document their family trees, and editorial mistakes have produced some errors. Some good examples include children listed as siblings, incorrect names, and omissions of entire generations. One slight issue is one heraldic description, with a multi-generational pedigree.

A descendant may have made at least two changes to have a new coat of arms granted. Therefore, as shown below, family heraldry is subject not only to geography – of Northamptonshire, or of Leicestershire – but also subject to a moment in time.

Richards

Henry Richards, of Welsh ancestry, was born in 1420. At the age of twenty-four, he met Agnes Fermor, born in 1426.[3] Sometime after their 1446 marriage, Henry took his wife’s surname, an indication that Agnes, the daughter and heiress of her father’s estate, was from a family of higher social distinction than the Richards. Henry Richards alias Fermor had a daughter, Elizabeth, and a son, Thomas.

We know this from the tomb of Thomas Richards alias Fermor’s great grandson Sir George Fermor in St. Mary’s Church at Easton Neston. The dexter spandril of the arch has the Fermor arms, and on the sinister spandril:

FERMOR, quartering 1. Azure a saltier between four eagles displayed or [RICARDS]; 2. Gules on bend argent three trefoils slipped vert [HERVEY]; 3. Per pale indented argent and or a chevron between three escallops gules [BROWNE].[4]

Fermor (top left) quartered with Richards (top right), Hervey (bottom left), and Browne (bottom right).

The Hervey arms signify the marriage of Thomas Richards alias Fermor to his second wife Emmote Hervey. The Browne arms signify the marriage of Thomas Richards alias Fermor’s son Richard to Anne Browne.

Fermor (ancient) & Wenman

When Thomas Richards alias Fermor married Emmote Hervey as his second wife, the expectation would be for the Richards arms on the dexter to impale Hervey on the sinister, with possible quarterings to signify Emmote’s first marriage to Henry Wenman. The Wenman coat of arms granted by Roger Machado, Clarenceux and King of Arms in London, is described as:

WENMAN:  on a fess between three anchors as many lions’ heads erased.[5]

Wenman Coat of Arms

However, Richard Lee, Portcullis and Pursuivant of Arms, in his 1574 visitation of Oxfordshire, records among the arms in Witney Church the following below the inscription “Thomas Ffarmor and Alice and Emote his wyfes.”

FARMER (ancient):  arg[ent] on a fess Sa[ble] between three lions’ heads erased Gu[les] three anchors Or.[6]

Fermor / Farmer Coat of Arms (ancient)

Interestingly, the Wenman and Fermor heraldry is very similar, signifying there may have been a family connection much earlier than Thomas and Emmote’s marriage.

The “anchors and lions” coat of arms remained with Thomas Richards alias Fermor’s line with his sons William and Richard, and then by Richard’s son Sir John Fermor. The arms were passed down to Sir John’s sons and daughters. For example, Mary Fermor married Thomas Lucas, son of John Lucas of London and Colchester by his first wife Mary Abell of Essex. Mary (Fermor) Lucas died on 05 July 1613, and the Lucas coat of arms on her tomb has three shields impaling Fermor.[7]

Fermor (modern)

Sir John Fermor’s son Sir George Fermor had the anchors removed in 1591 with approval from Clarenceux Robert Cooke and Richard Lee of Richmond.[8]

These arms were passed down to Sir George’s sons and daughters, as also seen on his tomb.

Fermor / Farmer Coat of Arms (modern)

I to VI:  FERMOR

VII:  Argent an eagle displayed sable collared or within a border sable Bezanty [KILLIGREW] impaling FERMOR. [Jane Fermor’s marriage to Sir John Killigrew.]

VIII. FERMOR ancient [sic?], impaling FERMOR modern. [Agnes Fermor’s marriage to Sir Richard Wenman?]

IX to XI:  FERMOR

XII:  Argent a fess between three blackbirds sable [HOBY] impaling FERMOR. [Katherine Fermor’s marriage to William Hoby.]

XIII. FERMOR impaling 1. Argent a chevron between three crosses flory sable [ANDERSON]; 2. Argent three cocks gules [COCKAYNE]. [Sir Hatton Fermor’s marriage to Elizabeth Anderson and Anne Cokayne.]

XIV:  1. Or a chevron gules canton ermine [STAFFORD OF BLATHERWICK]; 2. Gules an inescocheon argent between eight mullets in orle or [CHAMBERLAYNE], impaling FERMOR. [Elizabeth Fermor’s marriages to Sir William Stafford and Thomas Chamberlayne of Wickham.]

XV:  FERMOR

XVI:  1. Argent lion rampant azure [CRICHTON]; 2. Gules three lions passant in pale or [O’BRIEN], impaling FERMOR. [Mary Fermor’s marriages to Robert Crichton and Barnabas O’Brien.][9]

Burke’s A General Armory of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1884) has “lions and anchors” for the Farmers of London; of Somerton, Oxfordshire; and from Northamptonshire, Shropshire, and Worcestershire. For descendants who claim Sir George Fermor as an ancestor, “lion heads,” to include the descendants of Oxfordshire; Mount Pleasant, Sussex; Nonsuch Park, Surrey; Northumberland; and Clarvil, Sussex.

For the Irish descendants of Sir George’s son Robert Farmar, to include the Farmar’s of Bloomfield and Dunsinane, County Wexford, a crescent signifies the difference, with exception to Robert’s son Major Jasper Farmar.[10]

Farmer (other)

Descriptions of the heraldry for other Farmer families are as follows.

Farmer of Norfolk (1552)
Argent, on a saltire sable (sometimes sable), between four lions’ heads erased gules, a martlet between four bezants, on a chief azure an anchor between two pallets or.[11]

Farmer Coat of Arms, Norfolk

Farmer of Walsh, Sussex (1575)
gules, a chevron vaire between three lions rampant or.[12]

Farmer Coat of Arms, Walsh, Sussex

Farmer of Sussex
Ermine a chevron Sable between three roses Gules [Farmor].[13]

Farmer Coat of Arms, Sussex

Farmers of Worcestershire
argent, on a fesse sable between three lion’s heads erased gules, as many acorns slipped or.[14]

Farmer Coat of Arms, Worcestershire

Farmers of Leicestershire
sable, on a chevron between three lamps argent, flammant proper, a leopard’s face between two mullets gules.[15]

Farmer Coat of Arms, Leicestershire

Draper alias Farmer

At one time, the Fermor’s became Draper’s through the line of Thomas Richards alias Fermor’s son John, born to his first wife Alice ___, possibly Draper.

When examining the arms granted to Thomas Draper alias Farmer, the letters included in the Visitation of Berkshire are those of Thomas Draper of Lincoln’s Inn (ThomasA) whose arms granted in 1612 are identical to the arms of Thomas Draper of Great Marlow (ThomasB) granted in 1571.

Draper alias Farmer, 1571 & 1612

On a column within the Old St. Pancras Church near Islington are the same arms belonging to Richard Draper, Serjeant-at-Law, who died at Highgate in 1756 at the age of sixty-one (b. ca. 1695). The same arms are claimed by Richard Draper’s father Thomas Draper. When proof of descent was requested at the 1687 visitation of London, Thomas produced an untinctured steel seal.[16]

At another point in family history, the surname dropped the alias and simply became “Farmer.” The arms for John Farmer of Cookham, son of ThomasB, at his tomb in the north transept of the All Saints church in Great Marlow has the sinister showing the relationship of his father’s marriage to Agnes Barker,[17] while the dexter description is described as…

Langley, History of Buckinghamshire (1797)
Arms, Baron and femme. In chief, 3 fleurs de lys in base 3 bends [DRAPER] ; impaling quarterly, 1 and 4, a lion [BARKER] — 2 and 3, three spears [BURGHLEY].[18]

Lipscomb, History of Buckingham (1847)
On a Chief three fleur-de-lis: in base three bendlets: repeated on another shield. Quarterly, 1 and 4, party per chev. Engrailed, a lion ramp… counter charged; 2 and 3, a chief… surtout three spears in pale.[19]

Burke, General Armory (1884)
bendy of eight or and gu. on a chief ar. three fleurs-de-lis az. [20] [Most closely matches the untictured arms for Thomas William Farmer (1786-1837), a hop and seed merchant buried with his wife Mary Ann (1791-1838) at St. Saviour, Southwark.] [21]

Stephenson, Monumental Brasses (1903 & 1926)
(1). (Gu.). three bendlets (or), on a chief per fess (arg.) and ermine three fleur de lys in the upper part (sa.) DRAPER.
(2). Per chevron engrailed (or) and (sa.) a lion rampant counterchanged. BARKER. Quartering. Per chief (sa.) and (arg.) over all three tilting spears erect counterchanged. BURLEY.[22]

John Farmer of Cookham, d.1631

The 1797 and 1847 description has led to speculation that Thomas Richards alias Fermor’s first wife Alice may have been related to John Norman, Lord Mayor of London in 1453 based on descriptions for his coat of arms.

Burke’s General Armory:
or, three bars gules; in the chief argent as many fleur-de-lis sable.[23]

Harleian MSS:
or, three bendlets gules, a chief per fess argent and ermine, charged in chief with three fleurs de lys sable.

Ferney

When Sir George Fermor changed his arms, the Fermor coat of arms became identical to Fiernye of Yt Ilk from Fife, Scotland. According to Robert Stodart in Scottish Arms, Being a Collection of Armorial Bearings, A.D. 1370-1678 (1881), the arms in Illuminated Heraldic Manuscript (ca. 1565) once owned by James Workman in 1623 are described as…

the fess is sable… with three anchors on the fess; anchors are the bearing of Ferme or Fairholme.[24]

Burke’s General Armory notation for Ferny in Scotland is slightly different, perhaps as a result of location and moment in time for the family:

Or. a fesse az. betw. three lions’ heads erased gu.[25]

Ferney Coat of Arms

Burke’s Ferney tinctures were used by Thomas Trotter for his 1801 watercolors of the Fermor family monuments at Somerset church,[26] including the arms above the monument to Sir George’s uncle Jerome and his wife Jane. Today, the tinctures on the monument are of the sable fess and lions gules impaling “sable, a bend between two leopards’ faces or.”

Jane (Isaacs?) Fermor Coat of Arms

As Jane’s identity is unknown, a study of arms and pedigrees may suggest that she descended from the Isaacs of Kent. The research is supported by multiple associations with the Fermors. The Isaacs family arms changed over time, including the tincture of the leopard faces changing from gules to or, and the sinister bend changing to dexter bend.

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” tracing the family history from 1420 to 1685, and “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh” following their 1685 arrival from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

Featured image: “St Mary’s Church, Easton Neston, Northamptonshire,” SeeAroundBritain.com. nd.

[1] Rylands, Disclaimers At The Heralds’ Visitations (1888), pp.iii-viii, 26.

[2] Rylands, Disclaimers At The Heralds’ Visitations (1888), pp.iii-viii, 26.

[3] Farmer, “Thomas Farmer, Jamestown Adventurer:  His History, Descendants, & Ancestors,” Pioneers Along Southern Trails, vol.3 (December 2009), p.212; Howard et al, Genealogical collections illustrating the history of Roman Catholic families of England (1887).

[4] Baker, History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, vol.2 (1844), p.148.

[5] Blomfield, History of the Deanery of Bicester (1882), p.121.

[6] Blomfield, History of the Deanery of Bicester (1882), pp.103, 121; Turner, The Visitations of the County of Oxford (1871), p.46.

[7] Raven Visitation of 1612. Metcalfe, Visitations of Essex, p.235.

[8] Rylands, Grantees of Arms Named in Docquets and Patents to the End of the Sixteenth Century (1915), p 86.

[9] Baker, History and Antiquities of the County of Northampton, vol.2 (1844), p.148. Installed in 1609 on the east wall of the All Saints Church in Bisham is a window consisting of six panes, each pane with a shield on the top and a shield on the bottom. Presently, the bottom shield on the fifth pane from the left has Hoby impaling Fermor (modern). Also reference: Page, A Victoria History of the County of Berkshire, vol.3 (1923), pp.139-152.

[10] “Colonial Estates – Philadelphia, PA & Bucks County, PA,” Hobbs and Phillips Family Genealogy; Cook, “Farmar of Ardevalaine, County Tipperary, Ireland and of Whitemarsh, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,” The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, vol.21, no.2 (1959), p.93; “Wills Proved at Philadelphia 1682-1692,” Publications of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, vol.1, no.2 (1896), pp.58-59. Endorsed on reverse: Mary Farmers Will 1686 Prob**1 in forme of Law l: 5th month 1687 & registered Book A: fol: 45 #32. In America, the arms were used by: 1) Edward Farmar (Committee on Heraldry, New England Historic Genealogical Society. A Roll of Arms. 9 vols. Boston, 1928-1980; Jordan, Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania, vol.4 (1932), p.168/169); 2) Edward’s nephew Thomas Farmar (NEHGS aforementioned; Crozier, William Armstrong. Crozier’s General Armory (1904, reprint 1972)); and 3) Robert Adolph Farmar who was the son of Major Robert Farmer, the British Governor of Mobile (Crozier aforementioned; Matthews, John. Matthews’ American Armoury and Blue Book (1907, reprint 1962). An incorrect coat of arms of “a fess between three cocks’ heads” appears in Bean, History of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, vol.2 (1884), p.1139.

[11] Rye, The Visitacion of Norffolk (1891), p.119; Rye, A List of Coat Armour Used in Norfolk Before the Date of the First Herald’s Visitation of 1563 (1917), p.23; Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales (1884), p.340.

[12] Bannerman, The Visitations of the County of Sussex, Made and Taken in the Years 1530 (1905), p.113. “by patent dated the xth of November 1575 17 of Q. Elizebeth by Cla. Cooke.”

[13] Metcalfe, The Visitations of Suffolk Made by Hervey, Clarenceux, 1561, Cooke, Clarenceux 1577, and Raven, Richmond Herald, 1612 (1882), p.113.

[14] Grazebrook, The Heraldry of Worcestershire (1873).

[15] Fetherston, The Visitation of the County of Leicester in the Year 1619 (1870), p.179. Arms tricked for the descendants of Bartholomew Farmer and Margery ___ of Ratcliff. The coat of arms patented on 20 October 1663 by Sir Edward Walker to George Farmer of Holbeach, Lincolnshire, the fourth son of Bartholomew Farmer of Leicestershire and Ursula Mootus of Whitchurch, removed several charges as follows: “Sable, a chevron between 3 lamps Argent, flames Or.” (Ryley et al, The Visitation of Middlesex, Began in the Year 1663 (1820), p.50; Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales (1884), p.340.)

[16] Woodcock, “Heraldry in Old St Pancras Church,” The Coat of Arms; Annual Journal of the Heraldry Society, ser.4 vol.1 no.235 (2018), pp.60-61. Thomas Woodcock, Garter Principal of Arms, writes, “As Thomas’ father Joshua Draper of Braintee [sic], Essex, died in 1686 aged 73, he must have been born in 1613, a year after the grant [to Thomas Draper of Stroud Green in Middlesex by William Camden, Clarenceux in 1612], so would not appear to be a descendant of Thomas Draper the grantee, particularly as his father is also recorded as another Joshua Draper of Braintree, who died in about 1630…” Woodcock also notes that its location as described in Lyson’s time was on the east wall of the chancel and had been relocated to the north wall of the nave (Lysons, The Environs of London, vol.3 (1795), pp.351-353).

[17] “[the] coats-of-arms for Barker and Burghley signify the marriage of William Barker and Anne Burghley, daughter and coheir of William Burghley who lived in Sonning… Who Thomas married though is unknown. John Barker of Wokingham and his wife Katherine Martin had two daughters, Anne and Bridgett, who are not shown in the visitations. All of the children of John Barker and Katherine were listed in John Barker’s will, dated 1551. Neither Ann nor Bridget were married at the time of his death. Both were given an inheritance, to be paid to them should or when they married… It is not clear how the coat-of-arms would have become attached to the Farmers…” (Farmer, “Thomas Farmer, Jamestown Adventurer:  His History, Descendants, & Ancestors,” Pioneers along Southern Trails, vol.3 (December 2009), p.234.) Per parish records, “1592. Dec. 19. Agnes ffarmer, wife of Thomas ffarmer alias Draper, gent., was buried…” (Stephenson, “Monumental Brasses Formerly In Great Marlow Church,” Records of Buckinghamshire, vol.8 (1903), p. 456.)

[18] Langley, The History and Antiquities of the Hundred of Desborough, and Deanery of Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire (1797), p.128.

[19] Lipsomb, The History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham, vol.3 (1847), p.603.

[20] Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales (1884), p.341.

[21] Bax, “On Some Armorial Ledgers in the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour, Southwark,” Surrey Archaeological Collections, vol.22 (1909), pp.23-24; Boumphrey, Surrey Coat of Arms (1983), p.123.

[22] Stephenson, “Monumental Brasses Formerly In Great Marlow Church,” Records of Buckinghamshire, vol.8 (1903), pp.454-455; Stephenson, A List of Monumental Brasses in the British Isles (1926), p.55. Based on a rubbing in the Society of Antiquaries. The 1673 Roll of Arms for Thomas Draper, Baronet, of Sonninghill Park will also omits the ermine as “656. Three bends, on a chief per fess and argent three fleurs-de-lis, badge of Ulster (Schomberg, “A Roll of Arms, 1673,” The Genealogist, vol.25 (1909), p.245.)

[23] Farmer, “Thomas Farmer, Jamestown Adventurer:  His History, Descendants, & Ancestors,” Pioneers along Southern Trails, vol.3 (December 2009), pp.215, 224-225; Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales (1884), p.737.

[24] Blomfield, History of the Deanery of Bicester (1882), p.121; Stodart, Scottish Arms, Being a Collection of Armorial Bearings, A.D. 1370-1678 (1881), pp.168-169. “William de Ferny occurs in 1390; his descendants held the various Offices of keeper of Falkland forest, constable of Cupar, and mair of fee of Crail. Ferny was alienated early in the seventeenth century, and the heiress married Lovell of Ballumbie. The arms are cut in stone on a monument at Cupar of the fifteenth century. The coat given here is exactly that of Fermor, Earl of Pomfret, in England, and a family of Farmer, in England, bore the same, with three anchors or on the fess; anchors are the bearing of Ferme or Fairholme in Scotland, so it would seem that these southern families, with a surname certainly derived from an occupation, have wished to make out a Scottish descent…”

[25] Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales (1884), p.341.

[26] CMD ID 19903, MS. Top. Oxon d., “Drawings of Somerton church and of the Fermor family monuments there,” Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Posted on

The Portrait of Sir George Fermor

The new book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney” includes portraits of Sir George Fermor and wife Dame Mary Curzon auctioned by Sotheby’s from the Easton Neston estate sale. Or are they a £78,000 fraud?

(Edited from the ArtDaily and The Guardian articles with additional sources.)

In May 2005, Sotheby’s announced the auction sale of collected works from Easton Neston on behalf of the Lord and Lady Hesketh and the Trustees of Frederick Fermor-Hesketh, 2nd Baron Hesketh. The sale was held at Easton Neston, near Towcester, over three days, from Tuesday, 17 May to Thursday, 19 May, with viewing at the house days prior from Thursday, 12 May to Monday, 16 May.

Additionally, the 3,319-acre estate, its private racecourse, and the entire estate village of Hulcote – was for sale.

House and Estate Village

Easton Neston has been the seat of the Fermor-Hesketh family since 1535 with its purchase by Richard Fermor (d. 1552), grocer and merchant who made a large fortune trading with Flanders and Italy. He lived there in great style until his estates were forfeited in 1540. However, King Henry VIII relented at the end of his life, and the Fermors once again occupied Easton Neston.

The estate passed to Richard’s eldest son, Sir John Fermor, and then to his eldest son, George Fermor.  In September 1585, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, set off to the Low Countries with a substantial army to fight the Spaniards. Fermor was part of this expedition and was knighted by Leicester in 1586. On 27 June 1603, Sir George and his wife Mary Curzon entertained James I and Anne of Denmark on their way south from Scotland to assume the Crown of England. There was an enormous gathering and it was reported that the countryside could “scarse lodge the infinit companie of lords and ladies and other people.” Ben Jonson composed a special poetical entertainment for the occasions. The new King knighted a number of those gathered at Easton Neston, including Sir George’s eldest son Hatton.

The present house is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful country houses in England. Described in William Camden’s Britannia (1586) as a “beautiful seat,” the original house there was an amalgam of Tudor pitched roofs, gables, arched doorways and mullioned windows. This same house was home to six generations until, in the 1690s, Sir William Fermor (1648-1711) decided to consult Sir Christopher Wren (his cousin by marriage) for advice on building a new house. Wren’s office designed two wings for a new house (one of which no longer exists) and directed Sir William to his highly talented colleague Nicholas Hawksmoor around 1700.

Large 500-Year Fine Art Collection

The large collection up for auction consisted of over 1500 items to include fine English and French furniture, old master and British paintings, tapestries, silver, books, chinese cloisonné, Japanese lacquer work, and European porcelain and glass representing centuries of patronage and collecting at the highest level.

“The collection of works of art at Easton Neston is one of the most significant to have been put together by a British family over the last five hundred years. The house is full of rare and beautiful objects that reflect the changing tastes and fortunes of nearly 20 generations of the Fermor-Hesketh family, and Sotheby’s is extremely honoured to have been chosen to conduct such an historic sale.”
Henry Wyndham, Chairman of Sotheby’s Europe

The collection also contains an impressive collection of Old Master Paintings. Largely amassed during the 18th and 19th centuries, these include works by Jan van Goyen, Joseph van Bredael, Joost Cornelisz Droochsloot, and Pieter de Bloot, as well as an interesting group of 17th-century Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings. Alongside is a splendid array of English portraits and a large group of family portraits by Sir Peter Lely and Sir Godfrey Kneller.

Lely, Sir Peter. Portrait of King Charles III. Sotheby’s, Easton Neston Sale, Lot #162. Oil on canvas.
Click here for more information.

Later works include the full-length portrait of the Countess of Pomfret (est: £60,000-£80,000) by Sir Joshua Reynolds and an unpublished portrait of King George III attributed to John Shackleton, possibly presented to the 2nd Earl of Pomfret by the King himself. Further to the portraits, the sale will include a number of particularly good bird paintings by artists such as Peter Casteels.

Reynolds, Sir Joshua. Portrait of King George III. Sotheby’s, Sale at Easton Neston, Lot #163. Oil on canvas.
Click here for more information.

Among the paintings for sale are fine portraits of Sir George Fermor (d. 1612) and his wife Mary Curzon (d. 1628), both oil on panel measuring 264 by 140cm. (104 by 55in.) painted by (or attributed to) Robert Peake the Elder and extensively inscribed.

Unknown. Portrait of Sir George Fermor (and wife). Sotheby’s Sale at Easton Nest, Lot #164.
Click here for more information.

Sr: Geo: Farmor of Easton Neston in ye County of Northampton K:t / son & Heir of S:r Iohn Farmor K:t of ye Bath by Matilda his Wife, One of ye / Daughters of Nich: Vaux Bar:t of Harowden by Anne his 2d wife Daugh / Heirefs of The: Greene of Greenes = Norton in ye County of Northampton Efq / And Grandfon of Rich: Farmor Efq who purchace’d ye Mannors of Eafton = Nef: / = ton and: by Ann his Wife Daughter & Heirefs of S:r Will:m Browne Knight / This S:r George spent his Youth in ye Neitherlands Fighting under ye Great / Captain William Prince of Orange ~ then Marrying lived w:th great Splen=/=der ~ Hofpitality at his Seat of Eafton where he had ye Honour to enter=/=tain King Iames ye 1:t and his Queen ye 1:t time they ever met in England. / Aet:s Ad:ri 1597

Controversy with Portrait of Sir George Fermor

The staggering array of treasures sold for a total of £8.7m. But a year later, there arose some additional controversy with the portrait of Sir George Fermor.

First, the head of British paintings at Sotheby’s, David Moore Gwyn, misdated the works when they were put into the auction, even though other experts claim to have seen “at first glance” that they were pastiches.

Art dealer Christopher Foley, one of many interested buyers and a specialist in 16th and 17th-century English paintings, visited before the sale.

“I viewed the pictures at Easton Neston carefully on behalf of the National Trust. I bought back on their behalf a number of pictures there which had formerly been in a Hesketh house in Lancashire and which is now National Trust. Both I and the trust’s art specialist dismissed the two [Fermor] portraits as wildly out of period at first glance. The painting technique was not remotely correct, the panels were of the wrong type of wood, the compositions of a style at odds with a dating to the late 16th century. They were obviously fanciful. I remember remarking to two other dealers at the time when standing in front of them that the cataloguing seemed absurdly optimistic.”

In the words of one respected dealer, “complete tat and worth a few grand at best as decoration.”

The general view is that the paintings were produced at some time in the 18th century, probably at the behest of a later Fermor who wished to have some grand-looking family portraits to give his pedigree a bit of class. “About as valid, chronologically, as getting Damien Hirst to paint the Duke of Wellington,” according to one dealer.

The works’ estimate at the time of the sale was £100,000-£150,000. But such were the doubts among specialist dealers that the buyer, fashion designer Jasper Conran, paid £78,000, thought to be the reserve price.

The paintings needed conservation work and the restorer began to doubt the pictures’ authenticity. The paintings were sent to Ian Tyers, a leading practitioner in the field of dendrochronology, a technique which can date with precision when a tree was felled by analyzing rings in a piece of wood.

“We were asked to look at the wooden panels on which these works were painted, which is something we are asked to do not uncommonly to verify what they are. In this case, however, our research unverified what they were. Our findings demonstrated clearly that they were not what they were sold as. The panels are in fact early 18th century – not, in other words, what they were thought to be. They were sold as being by followers of Peake, dated to around 1580 or 1590. The trees from which the panel were made were still growing then. My sense is that many people in the trade knew what they were all along.”

Return to Sale

Conran returned to Sotheby’s and after his money was reimbursed, the paintings quietly reappeared in another Sotheby’s sale. There is no reference in the illustrated catalog that these are known to be 18th century, with an arguably, misleading description of “manner of Robert Peake the Elder c1551-1619″ arranged among earlier Elizabethan and Jacobean works… rather than chronologically with the 18th century paintings.

The portraits were to come under the hammer again on November 23, with an estimate of £40,000-£60,000. Mr. Foley believes that an estimate of £10,000 gives a more reasonable indication of their value.

“to call them ‘magnificent’, as they do in the new catalogue is, well, completely over the top – and the new estimate of £40-£60,000 seems, shall we say, rather enthusiastic for a pair of 18th century pastiches in very fragile condition.”

Challenged on the description of the works, Gwyn said that “in the manner of” gave a clear indication of the works’ date: “If you look it up in the glossary you will see that it is our way of saying ‘painted at a later date’.”

Asked about the apparent failure of the catalog to make clear that the works are now the property of Sotheby’s, Gwyn pointed out that a triangle-shaped symbol in the paintings’ catalogue entry signified “property of Sotheby’s” – again, a definition available by reference to a glossary.

Asked about the omission of the real date of the works, he said:

“This is our normal format. It has been like this for 30 years. To anyone who asks me, I say they are 18th century. We are not intending to deceive in any way. I am happy to put up a note next to the painting [in the auction house] saying they are 18th century. I agree that maybe some people won’t know what ‘in the manner of’ means.”

As for the estimate, he said: “Well, I don’t know: we’ll have to see. Estimates are only estimates, and they come from one’s experience.”

“We’re not perfect,” Gwyn told the Guardian. “We do our best. I thought they were of the period.”

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. Another book “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh,” follows the family immigration from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky.

Click here for more information
Posted on

War of the Three Kingdoms

The War of the Three Kingdoms ended with the English declaring their independence from the monarchy, and the descendants of Thomas Fermor had a role in history. Excerpted and edited from the book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney.”

Americans will celebrate their Independence Day holiday with fireworks as the date English subjects of the Crown declared a government ruled by the people for the people. The resulting Revolutionary War would see William Farmar Deweese playing a role in sheltering General George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-78.

It was not the only time the English declared their independence in similar fashion from the monarchy that would see other descendants of Thomas Fermor with a role in history.

Click image to enlarge

Young Duke of Albany visits Sir George Fermor

At the age of three, Prince Charles, the Duke of Albany, reunited with his parents King James VI & I and Anne of Denmark at the home of Sir George Fermor in Easton Neston, Northamptonshire.

The summer after [1604], my Lord Dunfermline and his lady [Grizel Leslie, Seton’s second wife] were to bring up the young Duke. The King was at Theobalds, when he heard that they were past Northumberland ; from thence the King sent me to meet them, and gave me commission to see them furnished with all things necessary, and to stay with them till they had brought the Duke to court. I did so, and found the Duke at Bishops Awkeland. I attended his Grace all his journey up ; and at Sir George Farmor’s (Eaton), in Northamptonshire, we found the King and Queen, who were very glad to see their young son.

There were many great ladies suitors for the keeping of the Duke but when they did see how weak a child he was, and not likely to live, their hearts were down, and none of them was desirous to take charge of him.

After my Lord Chancellor of Scotland and his lady had stayed here from Midsummer till towards Michaelmas, they were to return to Scotland, and to leave the Duke behind them. The Queen (by approbation Of the Scotch Lord Chancellor) made choice of my wife [Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Hugh Trevanion], to have the care and keeping of the Duke [before 19 November 1604]. Those who wished me no good, were glad of it, thinking that if the Duke should die in our charge (his weakness being such as gave them great cause to suspect it), then it would not be thought fit that we should remain in court after. My gracious God left me not, but out of weakness he showed his strength, and, beyond all men’s expectations, so blessed the Duke with health and strength, under my wife’s charge, as he grew better and better every day. The King and Queen rejoiced much to see him prosper as he did… My wife had the charge of him from a little past four, till he was almost eleven years old in all which time, he daily grew more and more in health and strength, both of body and mind, to the amazement of many that knew his weakness, when she first took charge of him.[1]

Bankrupt King

On 27 March 1625, James died of dysentery, and Charles succeeded a nearly bankrupt monarchy due to his father’s extravagant spending on paintings and musicians to entertain his court.

In June 1625, Parliament granted the king the customs duties from tonnage and poundage for one year. Parliament had refused to grant funds to Charles I for his war with Spain until their concerns about his favorite, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, had been addressed. When Christian IV of Denmark was defeated at Lutter in August 1626, Charles needed more funds to aid his uncle. He decided to bypass Parliament by levying a deeply unpopular Forced Loan without their consent. Many leading members of the gentry were appointed commissioners to collect monies, including Sir Richard Verney for Warwickshire. Some Members of Parliament were imprisoned for simply refusing to collect for the loan.

One of those arrested was Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston. For his persistence in refusing to contribute “the shipmoney, coal, and conduct money, and the loan,” he was “committed to prison, at first in the Gatehouse in London, and subsequently in a castle of Lincolnshire.” Five of the men arrested had attempted to bring a test case in November 1627 by suing out writs of habeas corpus. The judges refused to pass judgment, instead remanding the prisoners to custody after being informed by the Privy Council that they had been arrested on the orders of the king.

The Duke of Buckingham was financially restrained from sending a fleet to support the Siege of La Rochelle which had started on 10 September 1627. On 06 November, half of the English sent to fight the war in France were slain, including Richard Leigh. Charles needed more money and reluctantly summoned Parliament.

Parliament of 1628 & Personal Rule

Members returned for Parliament in 1628 were Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston (Suffolk), Thomas Wenman (Brackley), Sir Thomas Lucy (Warwickshire), Francis Lucy (Warwickshire), and James Fiennes (Oxfordshire).

As a gesture of goodwill, and in the hope of defusing some of the expected criticism, Charles ordered in January 1628 the release of those imprisoned for refusing to contribute to the Forced Loan. In March 1628, it was ordered by the king, being present in Council held at Whitehall, certain persons shall be “set at liberty from any restraint put on them by his Majesty’s commandment… Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston, John Hampden, Richard Knightley, &c.”[2] In the same month Sir Nathaniel was returned to Parliament as a representative of Suffolk and greeted with derision that “they would not have been chosen if there had been any gentlemen of note, for neither Ipswich had any great affection for them nor most of the country; but there were not ten gentlemen at this election.”[3]

Stone, Henry; Sir Thomas Wenman (1596-1665), Later 2nd Viscount Wenman; National Trust, Hartwell House; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/sir-thomas-wenman-15961665-later-2nd-viscount-wenman-217473

Once assembled, the House of Commons indicated that it would vote five subsidies in return for the king’s acceptance of a Petition of Right confirming the rights of the individual and protecting them against the divine right of the king. Parliament also mandated that the king could not arbitrarily imprison or levy taxes on his subjects without the consent of Parliament. After much debate and delay, Charles gave his assent to the Petition and the Subsidy Bill passed through its final stage in the House of Lords by 17 June 1628.

Parliament then turned its attention to the taxes of tonnage and poundage, which Parliament considered illegal. Charles brought the session to a rapid close. When Parliament reconvened in January 1629 it returned to the issue of tonnage and poundage, claiming that its continued imposition contradicted the Petition of Right. Matters got so heated that Charles dissolved Parliament by proclamation on 02 March 1629 and arrested nine of the leading protagonists, one of whom, Sir John Eliot, would die in the Tower of London three years later. Charles then dissolved Parliament in person on 10 March, starting the king’s “Personal Rule.”

The king’s finances between 1629 and 1640 were in a precarious condition. Tonnage and poundage, ship money, compulsory knighthood, revival of ancient forest laws, and meaner work by the Court of Wards were all employed to fill the treasury, but by July 1635 Charles was £1,730,000 in debt. With an incompetent government and economic troubles came unceasing demands for more money, fleecing the rich and oppressing the poor, while imprisoning the opposition without trial and then banishing them from their homes as punishment.

First & Second Bishop’s War

For many, Charles and Archbishop William Laud’s 1637 imposition of a new Prayer Book had too many similarities with Catholicism. Riots broke out in Edinburgh as the Scots viewed the royal decree as an attack on Protestantism and their freedom of worship. The Scottish Presbyterians signed a Covenant in 1638 before God to defend and preserve the true national religion.

Although they pledged their loyalty to the king, Charles saw their protests as an attack on his “divine” royal authority with punishments for those who refused the Prayer Book. The next year, Charles personally financed and sent an inexperienced army of twenty thousand to enforce the Prayer Book, thereby declaring war on his subjects. The English army was easily defeated in what is now known as the First Bishop’s War.

Parliament insisted on peace with Scotland, but Thomas Wentworth, Lord Deputy of Ireland, was recalled to England in September 1639 as Charles’ advisor and advocated for a vigorous war having seen the dangers of Irish Puritanism.

“Go on vigorously or let them alone… go on with a vigorous war as you first designed, loose and absolved from all rules of government, being reduced to extreme necessity, everything is to be done that power might admit… You have an army in Ireland you may employ here to reduce this kingdom.”

Charles’ defeat after the Second Bishop’s War forced him to sign the Treaty of Ripon in October 1640 stipulating that the Scottish army were to be paid £850 per day while they occupied northern England. To pay the stipend, Charles called for an assembly of Parliament so that he could make the request for more money.

“Short” Parliament of 1640

Along with Barnardiston who returned on 14 April 1640 for Suffolk, Wenman returned for Brackley, James Fiennes for Oxfordshire, and Sir Thomas Lucy for Warwickshire. Also returned were Sir Thomas’ brother Francis Lucy for Warwickshire, Fiennes’ brother Sir Nathaniel Fiennes for Banbury, and Sir Edward Leigh for Staffordshire. Sir Martin Lister was also returned for Brackley and his brother-in-law Arthur Goodwin for Buckinghamshire, having both married sisters Mary and Jane Wenman, respectively.

After an eleven-year absence, Parliament had a long list of grievances. Nathaniel Fiennes refused to profess their religious loyalty to the king and claimed they were not corresponding with the Scottish rebels.

If the King suspected their loyalty he might proceed against them as he thought fit ; but that it was against the law to impose any oaths or protestations upon them which were not enjoined by the law ; and, in that respect, that they might not betray the common liberty, they would not submit to it.[4]

Nonetheless, the “Short Parliament” was sent home three weeks after they assembled when Charles dissolved it for refusing the funds.

First English Civil War

The dispute between Charles and Parliament reached a crisis in the beginning of 1642. On 04 January, Charles entered the House of Commons with an armed escort of soldiers to arrest John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig, and William Stode, who having been tipped, were not present.

A week later on 12 January 1642, Thomas Lunsford, a fugitive outlaw appointed by the king to the position of Lieutenant of the Tower of London, was arrested for collecting troops in a plot to capture the magazine at Kingston-upon-Thames. His replacement at the Tower, Sir John Byron, was also questioned for the shipment of arms to Whitehall and the sheriffs of London under the command of Major General Philip Skippon placed a guard around the Tower to prevent the distribution of any arms and ammunition. The plot, whether it was real or imaginary, only stoked tensions around London against the king’s poor decisions and opinion that Charles would try any means possible to obtain money and seize complete power.

On 09 February, the House of Commons proceeded to nominate and recommend persons whom they desired to be entrusted with the militia of the kingdom. Nathaniel Fiennes was named for Oxfordshire, Greville for Warwickshire, and Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland, for Northamptonshire. With Charles refusing every demand of the Parliament to limit or suspend his own powers over the militia, Parliament under Oliver Cromwell published their celebrated Militia Ordinance on 05 March appointing lieutenants of the counties to array and arm a militia. With any obedience to the ordinance usurping the king’s authority, Charles reinstated the outdated Commission of Array, and the summer was employed by Parliament’s “Roundheads” and the king’s “Royalist” forces making preparations for war.[5]

On 22 August 1642, Charles erected his Royal Standard at Nottingham demanding the extraordinary aid of his subjects. The king had officially and openly declared war.

The Second English Civil War

The war lasted for almost four years until the king escaped the Siege of Oxford in May 1646 disguised as a servant and fled to the Scottish Presbyterian army. One of the Royalists who fought alongside the king was Francis Plowden, the eldest son of Sir Edmund Plowden, who was earlier besieged in the Battle at Shiplake Court.[6] Francis was allowed to depart with his servants and horses.[7]

After nine months of negotiation and in exchange for £100,000, the Scottish Presbyterian army presented Charles to Parliament in January 1647, who promptly placed him on house arrest. With their king back in the country, the Royalists rose again in May 1648 to start the Second English Civil War.

Nathaniel Fiennes had supported several negotiations toward a settlement with Charles, losing patience when the king escaped to the Isle of Wight in November 1647. On parole, Charles I attended a conference on Newport, Isle of Wight, between 15 and 27 November 1648 in which Fiennes, his father William, and Thomas Wenman were appointed commissioners. Nathaniel sought a compromise between the factions of the civil war, opposing the radical position adopted by the army, and supporting Charles’s final answer to the Treaty of Newport.

With Parliament in negotiations with Charles, senior commanders of Cromwell’s New Model Army on 05 December 1648 took control of London to prevent any interference from the Scottish Covenanters and trained bands sympathetic to the Presbyterians. The next day under the command of Colonel Thomas Pride, soldiers appeared at the House of Commons and arrested one hundred forty Members of Parliament who were in opposition. Among those denied entrance in “Pride’s Purge” was Nathaniel Fiennes, James Fiennes, Sir Edward Leigh, Sir Martin Lister, and Thomas Wenman with the latter briefly imprisoned. The remaining Members of Parliament formed the Rump Parliament, with eighty-three voting to end negotiations. On 13 December 1648, Parliament annulled the treaty and by month’s end, several members were released.

Trial and Death of King Charles I

In January 1649, the Rump Parliament indicted Charles on a charge of treason and a trial began on 20 January. At the end of the five-day trial, the king was declared guilty and sentenced to death. Cromwell spelled out the warrant for his execution in a letter dated 29 January 1649 addressed to Colonel Francis Hacker, Colonel Hercules Huncks,[8] and Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Phaire, but both Phaire and Huncks did not sign the order for the executioner. Colonel James Temple of Surrey, the son of Sir Alexander Temple signed the death warrant.[9] Thomas Herbert as gentlemen of the bedchamber since 1647 was one of the king’s last attendants who accompanied the king to the scaffold.

Charles, who after traveling from Scotland as a sickly child to the home of Sir George Fermor at Easton Neston to be reunited with his parents forty-six years earlier, was beheaded at Whitehall on 30 January. Formal celebrations on the annual 05 November date commemorating the Gunpowder Plot had been suspended, but in 1649 after the king’s execution, the day was again celebrated with bonfires and miniature explosives.[10]

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.

Click here for more information

[1] Seton, Memoir of Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, President of the Court of Session, and Chancellor of Scotland (1882), pp.199-200.

[2] Nichols, “The Institution and Early History of the Dignity of Baronet,” The Herald and Genealogist (1866), pp.210-211.

[3] Lee, “Barnardiston, Nathaniel,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol.3 (1885), p.243.

[4] Beesley, History of Banbury (1841), p.294.

[5] Beesley, History of Banbury (1841), p.298.

[6] Carter et al, “Sir Edmund Plowden and the New Albion Charter, 1632-1785,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.83 no.2 (April 1959), p.151.

[7] Hamilton, The Chronicle of the English Augustinian Canonesses Regular of the Lateran, at St Monica’s in Louvain, vol.1 (1904), p.226.

[8] Hercules Hunck (b. ca. 1601, d. ca. 1677), son of Sir Thomas Huncks and Catherine Conway, and brother to Sir Henry Huncks (b. ca. 1595), Governor of Barbados (1640-1641) before his involvement with Providence Island. (Green, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1654 (1886), p.377.)

[9] Prime, Some Account of the Temple Family (1887), p.12; Rylands, The Visitation of the County of Buckingham Made in 1634 (1909), p.212. Sir Alexander Temple was the brother of Mary Temple who was the wife of John Fermor of Marlow, and was the father of Susanna Temple, the second wife of Sir Martin Lister after the death of his first wife Mary Wenman.

[10] Ingram, “The Gunpowder Plot in Northamptonshire,” NeneQuirer.com. 26 October 2017.

Posted on

Barnabas O’Brien & Mary Fermor, Part 2

The O’Briens continued to live in Carlow Castle, but two years after moving into Bunratty Castle, they found themselves in the middle of a war in Ireland. Excerpted and edited from the new book “Thomas Fermor and the Sons of Witney.”

On 17 July 1615, Barnabas “Barnaby” O’Brien married Mary (Fermor) Crichton, the youngest surviving daughter of Sir George Fermor, and the second great granddaughter of Thomas Richards alias Fermor.[1] George Carew in his letter dated 24 January 1616 to Sir Thomas Roe writes “August… Sir Brian Obrien, the Erle of Tomond’s second sonne, is married to the Ladie Sanquer.”[2] As Sir George had died on 01 December 1612 and was buried the next day, the widowed Mary (Curson) Fermor and her eldest son, Sir Hatton Fermor, arranged the marriage settlement.

Despite their home in the grand Carlow Castle, large estate, and beautiful Irish surroundings, Barnaby asked Sir Richard Boyle, Baron of Youghal (later first Earl of Cork), to meet him and Mary at Youghal so that “his wife think she is in England.”[3] In 1618, Barnaby and Mary were granted a license to operate several taverns in Carlow, as well as making and selling wine.[4] To Barnaby and Mary were born Henry and Penelope.

While intermarriage with English wives offered advantages to Irish nobles by increasing their social status, wealthy and well-connected English families were reluctant to send their daughters to a country associated with incivility, barbarism, rebellion, and popery. As a Catholic family, the main religion of Ireland would not have been a deterrent, and perhaps the firsthand accounts of life in Tipperary and Cork from Mary’s brother Robert were satisfactory. The marriages of English brides into the families of Irish nobles certainly facilitated family opposition to attempts by the government in the late 1630s to confiscate lands in Counties Kilkenny and Tipperary.[5]

After the 26 July 1639 death of Barnaby’s brother Henry O’Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond, Barnaby became the 6th Earl of Thomond and moved into Bunratty Castle, the Thomond family seat. The castle was “a noble ancient structure” and “the loveliest of any place of any kind [in Ireland]… worthy of a king” located on the banks of the River Shannon near Limerick. The large deer park allegedly held three thousand stags and the gardens were “the likes of which put Italy’s to shame.” The castle and its farm buildings were ordered and furnished, with two story stables holding up to sixty horses. The public rooms were furnished with great splendor. Eleven pairs of tapestries hung in the dining room, which could accommodate forty people seated around eight tables. A large Turkish carpet covered the floor. The master bedroom, dominated by a bed hung with dark orange velvet trimmed with gold and silver loops, and matching stools and cupboard cloths, also had rich Arras carpets and tapestries. The castle courtyard, with its kitchen, laundry and outhouses, was the hub of domestic activity.[6]

Shortly before Christmas 1641, a musket-wielding rebel force commanded by Sir Walter Bagenal and Sir Morgan Kavanagh besieged the town of Carlow. Almost four hundred Protestant English settlers sought refuge in Carlow Castle. After rejecting an offer of fair quarter and safe passage to the sea if they surrendered, they became virtual prisoners within the castle living a nightmare as the besieged began to starve. Edward Briscoe and his wife watched seven of their nine children die “by want of necessaries.” Some women slipping out to forage for food were captured and hanged in full view of their families. A servant girl sent to fetch water was shot. A flood hampered efforts to break the siege until shortly before Easter 1642 when James Butler,[7] Marquess of Ormond and commander of the Crown forces in Ireland, sent a force under the command of Sir Patrick Wemys to relieve Carlow. As Wemys approached, the Rebels burned Carlow and fled. By July 1643, the countryside was so scorched by war that nothing grew, and starvation was rife.[8]

Barnaby did not want to commit to any one side in Ireland and diplomatically played each side – Rebel, Roundheads, and Royalists – against each other to his advantage. Admiral William Penn, the father of the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania of the same name, was assigned to defend Bunratty Castle and its strategic location to the city of Limerick but surrendered and the castle fell to the rebels in July 1646. Thomas Farmer, a lieutenant under Sir John Bolles, now serving under Penn in a frigate protecting the castle, safely removed Barnaby and Mary from the castle to Youghal where Thomas was residing.[9] The O’Briens subsequently fled to England, abandoning Bunratty Castle. The Rebels removed many of the valuable household items, the livestock, and “thoroughbred horses” when they captured the castle.[10]

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.

Click here for more information

[1] Lodge, The Peerage of Ireland (1754), p.262; Lenihan, Limerick; Its History and Antiquities (1884), p.157 incorrectly states he married “Mary, youngest daughter of Sir James [sic] Fermor, Knight, lineal descendant [sic] of the Barons Lempster, Earls of Pomfret…”

[2] Maclean, Letters From George Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe 1615-1617 (1860), p.15.

[3] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.185.

[4] Bunbury, “Carlow – The Castle & The County,” TurtleBunbury.com. 2000.

[5] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), pp.185-186.

[6] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.103. The description of the castle from an August 1639 inventory.

[7] First cousin-twice removed to Elizabeth Butler who was courted by Barnabas O’Brien, James Butler (1610-1688) was the son of Elizabeth Pointz and Thomas Butler (Viscount Thurles), the son of Walter Butler (11th Earl of Ormond), the son of John Butler of Kilcash, the son of James Butler (9th Earl of Ormond) whose son Thomas Butler (10th Earl of Ormond) was father to Elizabeth Butler who married Richard Preston, 1st Earl of Desmond.

[8] Bunbury, “Carlow – The Castle & The County,” TurtleBunbury.com. 2000.

[9] Bunbury, “Carlow – The Castle & The County,” TurtleBunbury.com. 2000.

[10] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.103.

Posted on

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.

Click here to learn more

[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.

Posted on

Barnabas O’Brien & Mary Fermor

Excerpted and edited from a new book to be released soon.

In the early seventeeth century, the family patriarch exercised total parental control and carefully orchestrated the right marriage contracts of their children, a normal practice in a society that regarded family discipline as a guarantee of public order, and in which young men and women depended on their fathers for their living allowances. It was a complex process with an accepted set of protocols involving three general stages, with customs, practices, and timeline varying with each family. First, informal enquiries were made to the prospective spouse’s family to gather general information before securing permissions – sometimes royal permission – to proceed with more formal discussions. Second, the two families, sometimes using a broker, negotiated the financial arrangements, especially the bride’s dowry and jointure, and secured the signing of the marriage articles and the settlement of estates. This stage often took months to complete as it involved the exchange of sensitive details relating to rentals, debts, mortgages, liabilities, general income and expenditure. Finally, the marriage ceremony took place followed by the consummation of the marriage, which was delayed if the couple were too young.[1] While intermarriage with English wives offered advantages to Irish nobles increasing their social status, wealthy and well-connected English families were reluctant to send their daughters to a country associated with incivility, barbarism, rebellion, and popery.[2]

Donough O’Brien, fourth earl of Thomond, was the fourth largest landowner in Ireland. Most of the Thomond estate was in County Clare, in the baronies of Bunratty and Tulla, with additional acres in neighboring Counties Limerick and Tipperary and in the Counties of Carlow, Dublin, Westmeath, and Queen’s. In September 1614, Thomond in his bridal search for his second son, Barnabas, upset the English courtier Thomas Butler, tenth Earl of Ormond. Ormond objected to the uninvited and “distasteful” overtures made to his only daughter, Elizabeth, who at the approximate age of twenty-two had been recently widowed with the death of her first cousin, Theobold Butler, first Viscount Butler of Tulleophelim, Ireland, a year earlier in December 1613. Thomond’s persistence left Ormond feeling “abused and dishonoured,” since he felt the match “might breed destruction to her, and dishonour to himself, in regard of his engagement to His Majesty, from which he never purposes to digress.” If Elizabeth defied his wishes by seeking an “unfit match” with Barnabas, Ormond threatened to “forget her to be his daughter.” [3] The situation may not have been whether Thomond was a “good match” because even if Ormond had better plans for Elizabeth, James I had intervened and obliged Ormond to marry his daughter to the court favorite Richard Preston, Lord Dingwall of Scotland and later first Earl of Desmond. Ormond did not approve of Preston and was very averse to the marriage but realized the dire consequences of opposing the king. Preston and Elizabeth married shortly soon after; Ormond died on 22 November 1614 at his home in Carrick and buried the following spring, 17 April 1615, at St. Kenny’s church at Kilkenny.[4]

On 17 July 1615, “Barnaby” married Mary Fermor, the youngest surviving daughter of Sir George Fermor.[5] Mary had been previously married to Scottish nobleman Robert Crichton, eighth Lord Crichton of Sanquhar, and the son of Edward Crichton. Crichton was a Member of Parliament in 1585 and 1587, and was appointed to a commission as Justice of the Peace, but after abusing his office, was discharged and allowed to remain as Sheriff of Dumfries. After a brief time sitting on the Privy Council, he entered the court of King James VI of Scotland as a diplomat, a position that made Crichton unpopular with his influence over the king.[6] For his role in the murder of the fencing master, John Turner,  Crichton was hanged 29 June 1612 on a gibbet with a silken halter in Great Palace Yard, before the gate of Westminster Hall. After dying penitent professing his Catholic faith, his body was taken by Lord Dingwall and Robert Kerr, Lord Roxburgh, and returned to Scotland.[7]

Sir George Fermor had died on 01 December 1612 and was buried the next day. The widowed Mary (Curzon) Fermor and her eldest son, Sir Hatton Fermor, arranged the marriage settlement. The £4500 received by Barnaby mentioned in a quadripartite indenture dated 11 June 1616 granting him Castle Carlow[8] may have been paid by Sir Hatton Fermor and his mother Mary, and that in return, Barnaby’s father was to grant them land of equivalent value in Ireland to live on.[9] If so, the indenture indicates the Fermors were either expanding their estate holdings or investing in a future relocation.

Despite the grand castle, large estate, and beautiful surroundings, in 1616 Barnaby asked Sir Richard Boyle, Baron of Youghal (later first Earl of Cork), to meet him and Mary at Youghal so that “his wife think she is in England.” [10]

Philip Farmer is the author and publisher of “Edward Farmar and the Sons of Whitemarsh,” a 500-page, 155-year biographical history of the family immigration from Ireland into Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Harlan County, Kentucky. The prequel and the sequel are currently in work.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 180527-EDWARD-FARMAR-FRONT-COVER-664x1024.png
Click for more information

[1] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.174.

[2] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.185.

[3] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.103, 174. King James I and IV of Scotland and England had a series of personal relationships with male courtiers, called his “favorites,” suspected to have been the king’s homosexual partners.

[4] Carte, The Life of James, Duke of Ormond, vol.1 (1851), p.cxv.

[5] Lenihan, Limerick; Its History and Antiquities (1884), p.157 erroneously states he married “Mary, youngest daughter of Sir James Fermor, Knight, lineal descendant of the Barons Lempster, Earls of Pomfret…”

[6] Paul, The Scots Peerage Founded on Wood’s Edition of Sir Robert Douglas’s Peerage of Scotland, vol.3 (1906) p.230.

[7] Letters and State Papers During the Reign of King James the Sixth (1838), p.36-37; Henderson, Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, vol.13 (1888), p.91; “1612:  Robert Crichton, Lord Sanquhar and mediocre swordsman.” ExecutedToday.com. 29 June 2014. Retrieved 05 March 2021. In July 1617, James I was entertained at Sanquhar Castle by William Crichton, 7th Lord Sanquhar and Robert Crichton’s son. “Doubtless it was a convenient stopping-place, but the royal visit must have awakened unpleasant memories in the family, since only five years earlier James had condemned his host’s predecessor in the title to an ignominious death by hanging before the gates of Westminster Hall on the charge of having instigated a murder, for which the unfortunate sufferer had at least some provocation, seeing that the victim, one Turner, had, whether intentionally or not is uncertain, put out one of his lordship’s eyes in a fencing bout…” (The Scottish Historical Review, vol.10 (1913), p.27).

[8] Burnbury, “Carlow – The Castle & The County.” TurtleBurnburry.com. 2000.

[9] Burnbury, “Carlow – The Castle & The County.” TurtleBurnburry.com. 2000.

[10] Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English:  The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), p.185.