by Laura Knight
What you are going to see is somewhat similar to what happens with online genealogy, very flawed family trees from the Visitations. Since Visitations concerned legal rights to certain privileges and pedigrees were being made and kept by people who were often illiterate, or were written down according to oral instructions, it is easy to understand how they could be so messed up as you are going to see with some Knight pedigrees. But the persons were trying to be as correct as they could be from both the side of the giver of information, and the receiver/scribe. That being the case, I’m also going to try to sort out the mess based on additional official records.
If you have examined any of the many online Knight family trees and sighed with rapture at the glorious connections to this or that noble family, you are going to be disappointed with the reality; for the most part, it appears that Knights were Yeoman freeholders who bobbed in and out of the gentry class. A few – very few – were actually knighted, and I’ve found none who married any high nobility. Several became members of Parliament (thankfully, so we have official records!); one was a famous bishop and secretary to Henry VIII; quite a few were wealthy enough, but not obscenely so; for the most part, they were exactly what the name denotes: retainers who performed their jobs well and loyally and were usually rewarded. The Knights, as a family, seem to me to be the Salt of the Earth in more ways than one, and a salt that has never lost its savor.
So, let’s take a look.
In the Visition of Shropshire, there is a family of Knights in Shrewsbury. There aren’t any dates given for them but the third one listed has additional information on him with dates that comes futher below, so I have back-estimated this family’s founder, Jenkyn, to c. 1420. (Jenkyn is a name of Cornish origin, a diminutive of the name John.) (pp. 289-290)
As I went through further records, I realized that there was something seriously wrong with this pedigree so I came back to it and using the usual method, estimated dates of birth of the several generations listed. Do NOT work from this pedigree or its dates! According to the Visitation, the family goes like this:
Issue of 4 John Knight and Alicia Forster
Issue of 4,1. Roger Knight (c. 1520) and Jane Mytton (Mition)
Issue of 4, 1., 1. Thomas Knight (c. 1540) of Shropshire and Elizabeth Bonsbury
Issue of 4, 1.,1., 11. William Knight (c. 1580) of Enborne (Enbourne) and Jane Langborne
Taking the pedigree at face value in the Visitation and adding reasonably estimated dates, creates huge problems that apparently didn’t occur to the family providing this pedigree. The dating anomalies created are almost laughable if they don’t make you want to cry. For example, John Knight, surely the son of William Knight of Enborne must be born as early as 1513 according to records at Oxford, the Middle Temple in London, and the fact that he became an MP. So he certainly can’t be born after 1580 which is where he ends up if you use the pedigree as given! More discussion on this below!
In the Visitation of Northamptonshire below, Thomas Knight “of Basticouta” is listed as Thomas Knight “of Baschurch”. In the Shropshire Visitation we see that he is said to be the son of Roger and grandson of Jenkyn. However, there are more details about him from the History of Parliament that are based on official records:
Thomas KNIGHT, (by 1475-1518/20), of Walford in Baschurch and Shrewsbury, Salop.
Family and Education: b. by 1475, 1st s. of Roger Knight of Shrewsbury by Jane, da. of William Mytton of Weston-under-Lizard, Staffs. m. Elizabeth, da. of Nicholas Pontesbury, 3s. 5da.
Right away we have a problem between this genealogy and the pedigree of the Visitation above. In the Visitation, the line goes from Jenkyn to Roger, to John who married Alicia Forster and then it is a son of John, Roger Knight, who married Jane Mytton and was father to a Thomas who married an Elizabeth Bonsbury; here we have Thomas married to Elizabeth Pontesbury. Notice also, in the Shropshire Visitation, that it is this latter Thomas who has 5 sons and 6 daughters and no sons or daughters are given for the first Thomas while this account gives Thomas 3 sons and 5 daughters. This is the sort of thing you have to keep your eyes open for in genealogy. Something is wrong with this and what are we supposed to do with it? From the next items of confirmed records, we know that this Thomas Knight of Baschurch and Shrewsbury was operating well before the second Thomas Knight was supposed to be born in 1540:
Offices Held: Warden, Shrewsbury drapers’ co. 1497-9, 1505-7; alderman, Shrewsbury by 1501, bailiff 1501-2, 1505-6, 1509-10, 15I3-14, 1517-18; escheator, Salop 1512-13; commr. subsidy, Shrewsbury 1514, 1515.Thomas Knight came of a leading Shrewsbury family and was related through his mother to those of Mytton and Corbet. His father was bailiff of Shrewsbury five times between 1465 and 1488 and his uncle Henry Knight was a clerk of the signet, but a Northamptonshire namesake who was also a clerk of the signet and, from 1543, clerk of the Parliaments seems to have been of a different family, although one branch of his own did settle at Charwelton in that county.
You can almost see the puzzled author of this article trying to reconcile the official documentation with the semi-official Visitation pedigrees. It’s almost comical.
In 1501 Knight and Humphrey Blike acted as feoffees for Lawrence Hosier alias Howels. Admitted to the drapers’ company in the year 1495-6, Knight was serving his third term as bailiff of Shrewsbury when he was returned to the Parliament of 1510 with his fellow-bailiff Roger Thornes. Since that Parliament lasted only 34 days, the entry in the Shrewsbury bailiffs’ accounts for 1509-10 of a payment of £10 to Knight and Thornes for 50 days’ expenses may mean that they had sat in the Parliament of 1504, for which the town’s Members are unknown. Shrewsbury was to be slow in paying Sir Thomas Kynaston and Thomas Trentham, the Members for 1512 and 1515 and the absence of Knight’s name from the assessment made for that purpose in 1519-20 has been taken to mean that he was then dead. (Muriel Booth: History of Parliament)
I still haven’t figured out where anyone came up with “Basticouta”. Baschurch, on the other hand, is listed in the Domesday Book as Bascherche and was held by “Earl Roger”, whoever he was.
Baschurch is located about 30 kms NW of Shrewsbury and about 50 km from the border with Wales. It was originally Welsh and up to about the 9th century. Local tradition holds that the Berth Pool and its ancient earthworks outside the village are the resting place of King Arthur.
Knight Family of Charwelton: The Northamptonshire Knights are a branch of the Shropshire Knights. This family begins with Thomas Knight “of Baschurch” we have met above in some detail. Thomas Knight (b. c. 1475) of Baschurch was father to John Knight (b. c. 1500) of Shrewsbury, Shropshire who married Alice Forster and we then meet the same list of descendants in the Northampton family as in the Shropshire family (and the same dating issues) only here we follow the line of son Adam Knight. This visitation also refers us to the Warwickshire Visitation to view the Coat of Arms of both families, being the same family. (pp. 105-106)
Issue of 4John Knight (1500) and Alicia Forster as given above.
Adam’s wife is not named but he had issue:
2John Knight (c. 1542) of Charwelton and Anne Hely had issue:
2, 2, Thomas Knight (c. 1564) of Charwelton and his wife Agnes had issue:
2, 1, 4., Thomas Knight (c. 1585) of Charwelton and Cicily Wake, his wife, had issue:
- Dorothy Knight m. 1st Francis Willoughby of Ikeley; 2nd William Downhall of Geddington.
- Thomas Knight, died young
- John Knight of Charwelton m. Elizabeth Glover, dau. of Edward Glover of Helidon.
- Anne Knight m. Richard Billinge of Winwick
- Margaret Knight, Marie Knight, died young?
- Judith Knight m. John Creswell of Purston, Northamptonshire.
2, 1, 4., 3, John Knight (c. 1605) of Charwelton, living in 1618 at the time of the Visitation, and his wife, Elizabeth Glover, had issue:
- William Knight of Charwelton m. Jane Grammer, dau. of Francis Grammer of Kenilworth
- Joane Knight m. Wilham Wase of Wappenbury, Warwickshire.
- Dorothy Knight m. John Overton of Fillougley, Warwickshire.
- Andrew Knight, dec.
As noted, date estimation creates a problem here, too. John Knight of Charwelton, conservatively estimated to be born 1605 by following the line down, now must have a wife and 4 children by 1618 when he was only 13 years old! Plus, William Knight who was the Clerk of Parliament is working before he is born!
A new anomaly also occurs in the pedigree above. Note that an Adam Knight is supposed to have been a monk at Biddlesden (Bittlesden), and going by the procedure of estimating birth years, he would have had to have been born around 1562. Biddlesden Abby was dissolved and sold in 1538, that is, 24 years before he was born. So certainly, if this Adam lived and was a monk at Biddlesden, we are going to have to move the whole family group back.
The Warwickshire Visitation section on the Knights only repeats the last part of the Northamptonshire pedigree and displays the family Coat of Arms! (p. 218-219)
We are given the four siblings which happen to be the children of John Knight of Charwelton and Elizabeth Glover of the Northamptonshire Visitation, though in a different order; William Knight has been moved from Charwelton to Rowington and Joane Knight has become Johanna.
Recall, of course, that this John Knight has an estimated birth year of 1605 and based on that, would be 13 years old in 1618 which makes things interesting since his grandchildren are presented in this Visitation with actual dates of birth! Based on backdating John of Charwelton from the bottom up, using actual dates, we get a birth year for him of 1573, not 1605, a difference of 32 years at least. That’s a bit more than a generation off.
2William Knight of Rowington and Jane Grammer had issue with dates enabling me to estimate dates retroactively!
Elizabeth Knight b. 11 March 1615
- William Knight b. 27 Oct 1617
- Thomas Knight b. 1 Jul 1619
And here is the Coat of Arms. Rather different from the ones you find online!
Fillongley, where John Overton, the husband of Dorothea Knight, lived, is a village where a fortified manor was held by the Hastings family. Henry de Hastings was Constable of Kenilworth Castle in the 13th century, but the manor had passed to the Beauchamps. We notice that the wife of William Knight is the daughter of Francis Grammer of Kenilworth, the town where the castle is located. The castle at this time, belonged to the Earls of Leicester but was partly destroyed in 1649 during the revolution.
The Warwickshire Visitation mentions a few other Knights:
Under the family of Dixwell of Cotton, we find that Elizabeth Knight, dau of John Knight of Brockholme m. William Dixwell of Cotton. (p. 41)
Under the family of Stoughton, we find an Elizabeth Stoughton m. John Knight of St Denys (Denis) of Southampton. (p. 142) This must be the “John Knight, Gent. of St. Denys (Dennis), Southampton” listed in the Knights of Hampshire below.
Then, there is another Dixwell family with a different coat of arms (though similar). Here we see “Cotton” spelled “Coughton” and an Elizabeth Knight, dau. of John Knight of Muscott, Northamptonshire, married William Dixwell of Churchover (Churchoner) Warwickshire, vixit. (lived) 1563. Churchover is in the vicinity of Fillongley and Kenilworth.
The manor of Coughton - spelled “Coctune” - is recorded in the Domesday Book when it was one of 70 manors in Warwickshire held by Thorkell, or Turchill, of Warwick later surnamed Arden. Thorkell was an Anglo-Saxon, his father, a descendant of Vikings, was Sheriff of Warwick under King Edward the Confessor. Soon after 1086 William II created the earldom of Warwick for Henry de Beaumont, who changed his name to Henry de Newburgh, appointed him Constable of Warwick Castle and gave him the great estate of Thorkell of Arden. It is not known why Thorkell was dispossessed. There is a parish church dedicated to St. Peter next to Coughton Court. (See Wikipedia for details and sources)
There is a very short genealogy of a Hampshire Knight family in the Visitation of that county dated 1530 – 1575, (p. 88).
John Knight of Newbury (Newbery) m. Elizabeth Jackman, they had two sons:
There is not much information in the Visitation but there is a different coat of arms showing a joining of the family of Knight with Bedwell and half of the Coat of Arms blank so something is certainly wrong.
According to the Visitation, John died and his widow married subsequently 2. Robert Parris and 3. Sir Francis Dawtrey. And that’s it for the Visitation information.
We learn more about these Knights from the online History of Parliament.
John KNIGHT, MP (by 1513-1550), of Newbury, Berks. and the Middle Temple, London.
Family and Education: b. by 1513, yr. s. of William Knight of Reading, Berks. educ. ?Oxf., BA 1529, MA 1533; M. Temple. m. disp. 14 July 1540, Elizabeth, da. of William Jackman of Wing, Bucks., 2s. (Bindoff 1982)Offices Held: ?Subsidy collector, Berks. 1534-5; under steward, Sandford preceptory, Oxon. 1546; j.p. Berks. 1547; escheator, Oxon. and Berks. 1548-9.
John Knight’s parentage was not recorded in any visitation, but the references in his will to a brother Robert and a half-brother, William Knight of Reading, make it virtually certain that his father was the William Knight of Reading whose will, proved in 1536, mentions three sons, William, Robert and ‘John the younger’, and whose bequests of two broadlooms and three kerseys show him to have been a clothier. Several families of the name lived in the vicinity of Reading and Newbury, and the elder William Knight had a ‘godson’ named John Knight at Thatcham.
Knight may have graduated at Oxford before entering the Middle Temple, where a gap in the records conceals his date of admission but where he was a member in 1545. At the inn he continued the association with Richard Brydges which had its origin in their native county and which was reflected in his witnessing of the will of Brydges’s father Henry in 1538. It was with Richard Brydges that Knight was to make his principal purchases of land. In 1543 they paid £305 for ex-monastic properties in Berkshire and Wiltshire, of which Knight’s share included the manor of Templeton in Kintbury; Templeton had belonged to the Sandford preceptory of the Knights of St. John, of whose lands Knight was to be appointed under steward in 1546. In March 1545 he partnered Brydges in a similar purchase, which included Stratton St. Margaret, Wiltshire, although this grant was made to Brydges alone; 11 months later they paid £515 for lands in Berkshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire, as well as the manor of Crosby, Cumberland, which they quickly sold.
Knight’s other partner was Robert Weare alias Browne, with whom in April 1549 he bought for £613 more Berkshire and Wiltshire land, some of which he and Brydges already had on lease. His own purchase in 1544 of Berkshire lands formerly of the Duke of Suffolk, included three fulling mills at Newbury; in the previous year he had bought the tithes of two rectories in Thatcham then leased by John Winchcombe alias Smallwood. Knight himself acquired various leases, among them one of Kingsclere, Hampshire, assigned to him by his fellow Middle Templar John Pollard, and another of part of Enborne; on these two manors he had 500 sheep as well as other stock, while in Newbury he owned a brewhouse.
Apart from his (probable) subsidy collectorship of 1534, Knight’s return for Ludgershall to the Parliament of 1545 is his first known intervention in public affairs. Both he and his fellow-Member Thomas Hawes clearly owed their seats to Richard Brydges, who had the nomination there. Either or both could have taken one of them in 1539 or 1542, when the names are lost, and one or other might have been re-elected in 1547 but for the intervention of the Duke of Somerset, who then claimed both seats for dependants more favourable to reform than any nominee of the conservative Brydges is likely to have been. As it was, Knight was put on the commission of the peace and served a year as escheator before dying on 13 Jan. 1550.
By the will which he had made on 2 July 1549 he set aside for 16 years the income from much of his landed property, to an estimated value of £27 a year, for the payment of debts and annuities, and assigned one-third of his lands to the crown for the wardship of his two young sons. He gave his wife for her dower property in and near Newbury, including the three fulling mills, as well as the profits of his lands in Enborne and the brewhouse in Newbury until the heir Richard came of age. Richard himself was to have the lease of Bishopstone and the younger son John those of Kingsclere and Merton. Knight appointed his wife and sons executors and John Pollard, John Winchcombe and two others as his overseers. His widow proved the will on 18 May 1550. A week earlier she had been granted the wardship of Richard, who in 1583 was confirmed in his father’s grant of arms; in 1557 his inheritance was valued at £47 a year. Elizabeth Knight’s second husband, Robert Paris, was probably the man who died in October 1550 from wounds inflicted by John Cheyne and others, and perhaps also the New Romney man of the same name who had sat in the Parliament of 1523. (S. R. Johnson: History of Parliament )
All in all, a most instructive bio. This John Knight was a real go-getter and made a pile of money, though one is not certain exactly how he did it. His sons were underage when he died in 1550, possibly 16 and 14. One very interesting point is that his widow married a New Romney man suggesting interactive connections with the Knights of Kent.
Below is an image of the first page of John of Newbury’s three page will; he was a lawyer, after all!
John Knight of Newbury apparently had a descendant, Ralph Knight (1619-1691, who was an MP for Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. in 1659 and 1660 respectively. Since he is really too late to concern us here, I omit his bio which you can read on the History of Parliament website.
Knight Family of Piddington: There is another Knight family in the Northamptonshire Visitation (p. 106) that does not appear to descend from the previous families though that doesn’t mean there is not a connection; we already know what a mess the whole genealogy is by now. I’ve back-estimated the date of the founder, Edward Knight, to c. 1525 (from the bottom up).
I. Edward Knight (c. 1525) m. ___ Langholme, dau and heir of ___ Langholme alias Comsholme of Louth (Lowth), Lincolnshire; their son:
1. Thomas Knight (c. 1548) of Emberton (Emerton), Buckinghamshire (on the border of Northamptonshire), m. Agnes Chipsey, dau and heir of Thomas Chipsey of Northamptonshire, Grocer.
i. Edward Knight (c. 1568) of Piddington, Northamptonshire, m. Elizabeth Congleton, dau. of John Congleton of Flore (Floore), Northamptonshire. They had issue:
a. Edward Knight (c. 1587) m. Jane Creswell, dau of John Creswell of Purston, Northamptonshire
b. John Knight
c. Richard Knight
d. Thomas Knight, Martha Knight (dec infants)
e. Ann Knight
f. Elizabeth Knight
g. Frances Knight
h. Mary Knight m. George Baucster of Turkden, Gloucestershire.
I, i, a. Edward Knight of Piddington (c. 1587), living in 1618, and wife Jane Creswell had issue:
1) Elizabeth (1607)
2) Judith (1610)
3) Jane (1614)
4) Joane (1617)
Even though the pedigree is given without reference to the other Knights of Northamptonshire, I think it is safe to assume a connexion, though we have to ask where they would fit? There are enough male Knights whose lines have not been followed in the Charwelton group to accommodate this family.
Richard Knight, MP for Chichester, Sussex is estimated to have been born c. 1518. We note that John Knight of Newbury, (above), in his Hist of Parliament bio, is estimated to have been born c. 1513 and that he is the son of William Knight of Enborne and Reading who may have had more than one wife. Here I suggest that the Richard Knight whose History of Parliament bio follows may very well have been the grandson of William Knight of Enborne and Reading, and his wife Jane Langborne as recorded in the Shropshire Knights section. If you take a look there, above, you will see a Richard who is brother to a John who is deceased. He is too old to be this Richard, but the exact right age to be his father.
West Sussex, where Chichester is now located, is South of Berkshire, on the coast, so is not that far from John Knight, MP of Berkshire, so this Richard must certainly be a relation both by age and location.
Richard KNIGHT, MP (by 1518-55 or later), of Chichester, Suss.
Family and Education: b. by 1518, Mayor, Chichester 1554-5.2
Offices held: Mayor, Chichester 1554-5.When Richard Knight was elected on 12 Oct. 1555 as one of the Members for Chichester in Mary’s fourth Parliament he had recently completed a year as mayor. Like his fellow-Member Robert Bowyer II, Knight may well have been the successful local businessman and civic personage that this dual achievement suggests, but the uncertainty surrounding his career both up to and after that point leaves this supposition largely unconfirmed.
He was almost certainly the Richard Knight who in 1539 had a house in South Street, Chichester, and who was commissioned in 1542, with the bishop and two other citizens, to investigate the authorship of seditious bills found in a field outside the city, but the Richard Knight of the tithing of Shripney, some five miles to the west, who had earlier engaged in land transactions, has a rural air about him: he was styled ‘yeoman’ when in December 1535 he bought for £80 a lease of Elbridge, and ‘husbandman’ when in the following March he leased from the archbishop of Canterbury the manor of Shripney and lands in Pagham for 50 years at £22 and 20s. a year respectively. If it was he who had been assessed in Shripney at £60 in goods for the subsidy of 1524 he could have been an older relative, possibly the father, of his namesake of Chichester.
Indeed, the Richard Knight, Yeoman, could very well be the son of William Knight of Enborne and Reading, and the father of this Richard Knight who would then be nephew to “John Knight the Younger” son of William and a later, second wife, though they are of a similar age.
The Parliament of 1555 was to witness a determined attack on government policy led by Sir Anthony Kingston, in the course of which an official bill was opposed on a division by upwards of 100 Members, among them Knight and Bowyer. For the representatives of so conservative a city to take this line could not have pleased many of their brethren; neither was to be re-elected to the last Marian Parliament, when at least one of their successors was Catholic, and only Bowyer was to sit again later. Knight, it is true, may not have survived to do so. It is doubtful whether he was the testator of 13 Jan. 1584 who left lands at and near Lyminster, and two houses in Chichester, to a son John, but no earlier evidence has been found which throws light on his end. (R. J.W. Swales: History of Parliament)
We’ve obviously got to make some sense of all of the above, about half of which is a mess. We notice that the pedigrees seem to be pretty good on the generation that is being examined by the herald, and for about two generations back, but then, the things become chaotic the higher up the pedigree you go. So, obviously, the way to go about it is to use the Visitations as starting points, and then to utilize the official records to the maximum as lynchpins. In the following, I’m going to do that and show how I went about it.
Starting with the Visitation of Shropshire done in 1623 “With additions from the pedigrees of Shropshire gentry taken by the heralds in the years 1569 and 1584, and other sources”, the family goes like this with date estimates working downward:
Issue of 4 John Knight and Alicia Forster
Issue of 4, 1. Roger Knight (c. 1520) and Jane Mytton (Mition)
Issue of 4, 1., 1. Thomas Knight (c. 1540) of Shropshire and Elizabeth Bonsbury
Issue of 4, 1., 1., 11. William Knight (c. 1580) of Enborne (Enbourne) and Jane Langborne
|
In the bio of John Knight of Newbury we read that he was the son of William Knight of Reading, no mother mentioned. Then we read about the will of his father that said will mentions three sons, William, Robert and “John the Younger”. John of Newbury also mentions in his own will a brother Robert and a half-brother William Knight of Reading, obviously William Knight JR of Reading. Note that the elder William did not mention a son Robert in his will. That would be normal if older sons were already established and no instructions for their care and upbringing were required.
It was not uncommon in those days for a man to name more than one son the same name if the previous ones died. And he might do this with the same wife or a new wife. The Shropshire text tells us that a John, son of William of Enborne “died at Newhouse” as though that was somehow supposed to convey something to the reader. Newhouse is in Scotland. I didn’t find anything that might connect, like a battle or something, so I’m at a loss about this one. But it does suggest that the first John must have been grown when he died, and that he died before 1513 when the second John is estimated to have been born, so we can make that c. 1510. We can also make this first John born c. 1492 to allow him to be 18 when he died in 1510. That would mean that the 5th son, the “half brother” of John2 was born between c. 1492 and 1511, at least. So, if there are 5 sons in the first family, by the first wife, with a couple of daughters, allowing 2 years per child average, that takes us back to about 1482 for the birth of the 1st son. That puts William Knight SR’s birth at about 1464. His will was proved in 1536, so this is possible.
A further argument can be made simply from the locations of the places involved: Newbury and Enborne are just a few miles/kms distant from each other, and both are not too distant from Reading which is on the way to London. We read about John of Newbury’s will:
He gave his wife for her dower property in and near Newbury, including the three fulling mills, as well as the profits of his lands in Enborne and the brewhouse in Newbury until the heir Richard came of age. Richard himself was to have the lease of Bishopstone and the younger son John those of Kingsclere and Merton.
I think we can accept that this William Knight of Enborne was the same person as William Knight of Reading with the following modified family group:
William Knight of Reading/Enborne (c. 1464-1536) m. Jane Langborne dau of William Langborne of Oxford.
|
This works well for John2 Knight “The Younger”, but puts William Knight of Enborne back between Roger Knight and Thomas Knight of Baschurch chronologically though we are only working with estimated dates; they could all three be brothers and probably were.
So, let’s come at it from another angle. In the Visitation of Northamptonshire, made in 1564 and 1618-19, I’ll start adding est. dates from the bottom up, allowing for children born between our target and the parent.
Bottom Up Date Reconstruction Northamptonshire Knights Thomas Knight (c. 1438) of Baschurch had issue:
Adam’s wife is not named but he had issue:
2 John Knight (c. 1502) of Charwelton and Anne Hely had issue:
2, 2, Thomas Knight (c. 1524) of Charwelton and his wife Agnes had issue:
2, 2, 4., Thomas Knight (c. 1550) of Charwelton and Cicily Wake, his wife, had issue:
2, 2, 4., 3, John Knight (c. 1575) of Charwelton, living in 1618 at the time of the Visitation, and his wife, Elizabeth Glover, had issue:
2, 2, 4, 3, 1. William Knight and Jane Grammer have children with dates in the Visitation from which I have worked backward:
|
As you see, it ends up making Thomas Knight of Baschurch, for whom we have definite records, too far back if he is supposed to be the parent of John Knight who married Alicia Forster. Thomas Knight of Baschurch could actually be the brother or cousin of Adam Knight. Recall what the Hist. of Parliament had to say about his family:
Family and Education: b. by 1475, 1st s. of Roger Knight of Shrewsbury by Jane, da. of William Mytton of Weston-under-Lizard, Staffs. m. Elizabeth, da. of Nicholas Pontesbury, 3s. 5da.
In the Visitation of Shropshire, Thomas Knight and Elizabeth Bonsbury have 11 children, not 8, and we can be fairly certain that he was not the father of William Knight of Enborne, but rather William must have been another brother.
We need to merge Roger Knight (c. 1455) with Roger Knight (c. 1520) who married Jane Mytton and mergeThomas Knight “of Basticouta” with Thomas Knight of Baschurch who married Elizabeth Bonsbury or Pontesbury; then we need to put John Knight who married Alicia Forster as son to Jenkyn and brother to Roger and do the same with William Knight of Enborne. We then end up with the following which pretty much accommodates the downlines of the several visitations without producing conflicts or dating anomalies.
As I said, I don’t believe this mess was made by trying to artificially extend a lineage back in time because we end up with the same starting point and approximate date; this mess was made by misunderstandings and confusion between oral information and written and the repairs I’m making are only approximations to which documentation needs to be attached.
I. Roger Knight (c. 1455) 5 X Bailiff of Shrewsbury, m. Jane Mytton dau of William Mytton of Weston, had issue:
II. John Knight of Shropshire (c. 1458 ) m. Alicia Forster dau. of Richard Forster
III. William Knight of Enborne (c. 1460-1536) m. Jane Langborne dau of William Langborne of Oxfordshire.
|
In any event, with the above reconstruction, one should be able to find and attach the correct downlines and estimate some reasonable dates for them, though there are some, such as the Piddington Knights, where we just don’t know where and how they might connect.
The Knights of Chawton that Lucian Lamar Knight was so taken with give their founder as a Nicholas Knight as follows:
There are several curious analogies between the history of Chawton and that of another old place in the North of Hampshire, viz. the Vyne, near Basingstoke. The late owner of the Vyne, Chaloner Chute, in his interesting history of the property, tells us that it was one of seventy lordships (fifty-five being in Hampshire) which were given by William the Conqueror to Hugh de Port. Chawton was another of the fifty-five. Less than two centuries later we find it in the hands of Robert de St. John (the de Ports having taken the name of St. John on their intermarriage with that family), and it is then stated that the rights of free warren, assize of bread, &c., had been in the hands of St. John's ancestors 'from all time.' But there were many branches of the St. John family, and the Vyne and Chawton fell into the hands of different offshoots: the Vyne, in succession, to the families of Cowdray and Sandys; Chawton to those of Poynings, Bonville, and West. In the middle of the sixteenth century the Wests first leased and then sold the property to the Knights, this transaction constituting the one sale of the land which has occurred since the Conquest. […]
In 1524 William Knight had a lease of the ' cite of the Manor place ' and farm of Chawton, with the West Park, for which he paid 25. This lease was renewed to ' John Knight the younger,' and afterwards (1551) the land included in it was sold to him. ("Chawton Manor and its owners; a family history" by WILLIAM AUSTEN LEIGH and MONTAGU GEORGE KNIGHT of Chawton, 1911, London, Smith, Elder & Co)
Recall here the official bio of John Knight of Newbury where we are informed that William Knight of Reading mentioned a son, “John Knight the Younger” in his will. We are then informed about a long series of land purchases made by John Knight of Newbury, “the younger” in partnerships with various partners. The land of Chawton House in Berkshire is not specifically mentioned there, but it would fit the general trend and scope of activity.
To say that the “lease was renewed to John Knight the younger” could reflect an awareness of the fact that it was John Knight of Newbury who was called that in his father’s will. As for the sale of land to a “John Knight the younger”, if he was so styled in the sale documents of 1551, it would have to be his son and the sale would necessarily be completed by the executor of the estate of John of Newbury who died in 1550 and his son, John, was still a minor born c. 1538.
It was stated above that there has been only one sale of Chawton. This statement requires correction so far as the Manor and Advowson are concerned. These latter rights were sold in 1558 to Thomas Arundel, and his son sold them in turn to Nicholas Knight (son of John) in 1578. (Chawton Manor, op. cit.)
Now we encounter a problem: a Nicholas Knight, son of John Knight “the younger” who is old enough to engage in land transactions in 1578. The problem is that this Nicholas Knight could not be the son of John Knight, son of John of Newbury and John of Newbury did not mention a son, Nicholas Knight, in his apparently somewhat detailed will.
Looking at John Knight of Newbury, we note that he was born c. 1513 based on his documented official activities. That means he would have been of marrying age as early as 1531. Yet we notice that his two sons named in his will, being minors, were born probably in 1536 and 1538. Even if he had produced a son, Nicholas, in 1531, said son would have been only 19 years old. There are many cases of young men of all classes marrying as young as 15, so that is not even an issue.
Looking further, we notice that there is a Nicholas Knight, son of William of Enborne/Reading, born c. 1490. We also notice that, according to the official bio, the elder William Knight, father of “John the Younger” of Newbury, “had a ‘godson’ named John Knight at Thatcham.” At the time, godparents were usually uncles and aunts, so this could be the John Knight who was the son of John Knight of Shropshire who married Alicia Forster. This son was listed as having married Margaretta Walcott dau of Hugh Walcott.
It seems to me that someone has confused John Knight “the younger” of Newbury with John Knight, the godson of William Knight of Enborne/Reading who must be the one who married the Walcott, and it is the latter who was the father of another John Knight “the younger” who was the father of the Nicholas Knight who purchased the rights in 1578 from Arundel. In other words, when the documents collected by the Chawton house people tell them that, “in 1524 William Knight had a lease of the ' cite of the Manor place ' and farm of Chawton, with the West Park, for which he paid 25. This lease was renewed to ' John Knight the younger,' and afterwards (1551) the land included in it was sold to him”, it must mean that William Knight, the uncle of this “John Knight the younger”, not his son, passed the lease to his godson/nephew. Because there is no way that his own son, “John the Younger” was old enough to produce a son, Nicholas, of the right age, and his own brother, Nicholas was too old to produce a son John and then a grandson, Nicholas, to do the job. The only John who fits, who is in the correct relationship to William Knight of Enborne/Reading who is associated with the term “John Knight the Younger”, is John Knight, nephew of William and thus son of John Knight and Alicia Forster.
The line would look like this:
John Knight of Shropshire (c. 1458 ) m. Alicia Forster dau. of Richard Forster
1. Adam Knight (c. 1480 )
2. Henry Knight (c. 1482 )
3. John Knight (c. 1484 ), m. Margaretta Walcott dau. of Hugh Walcott, had issue:
a. John Knight “the younger” (c. 1509) m. ? had issue:
i. Nicholas Knight (c. 1534) m. Elizabeth Standen
So, let’s continue with the account by the ‘descendant’ of this family.
The Knights were now fairly fixed in their new possession. Nicholas had a large family, and his eldest son John was in a position to carry on extensive building operations at the Manor House and its stables, his accounts for which are still in existence ; nor has the Mansion itself been much changed from the state in which he left it. There are many indications to show that he was building on to an old house for we know that an older moated house existed, and John Knight took a good deal of trouble to fill up the moat. (Leigh and Knight 1911 p. 4)
Here is an old drawing of Chawton:
And here is Chawton House as it looks today:
Here is how the descent looks going down from Nicholas:
Nicholas Knight (c. 1534) m. Elizabeth Standen and had issue:
1. John Knight (1563-1621) m. Mary Neale, no issue.
2. Stephen Knight of Chawton m. Judith and had issue:
a. Richard Knight m. Elizabeth Fielder and had issue:
i. Sir Richard Knight (1639-1679) m. Priscilla Reynolds, no issue
ii. Dorothy Knight m. Michael Martin and had issue:
1) Michael Martin m. Frances Lewkenor, had issue:
a) Richard Martin or Eynsham, Oxon. changed his name to Knight, no issue.
b) Christopher (Martin) Knight, never married, no issue.
c) Elizabeth (Martin) Knight, m. 1st William Woodward; 2nd Bulstrode Peachey; Both husbands assumed the Knight name; no issue.
The estates passed to Thomas (Brodnax) May Knight of Godmersham, the second cousin of Elizabeth (Martin) Knight.
Thomas (Brodnax) May Knight m. Jane Monke and had issue:
Now, let’s take a look at the official bio of John Knight, son of Nicholas, found on the History of Parliament online:
John KNIGHT, (1563-1621), of Chawton, Hants.
b. 30 Apr. 1563, 1st s. of Nicholas Knight of Chawton by Elizabeth da. and h. of John Standen, yeoman, of E. Lavant, Suss. educ. Hart Hall, Oxf. 1581; M. Temple 1582, called c.1604. m. Mary (d.1595), da. of William Neale of Warnford, 1da. d.v.p. suc. fa. Jan. 1584.Knight’s call to the bar is mentioned in the Middle Temple records in June 1603, but it was not confirmed until the following February, over 20 years after his admission. During the next few years he was fined for not attending vacation readings, and in May 1612 he was fined £5 for not reading himself. By 1615, when he surrendered his chamber, he was styled ‘a master of the utter bar’. Clearly he did not need to make a living as a lawyer.
Although family disputes over his father’s will were not settled until 1596, he inherited several manors in Hampshire, and between 1593 and 1611 he bought more land, mainly in the neighbourhood of Alton. He rebuilt Chawton house, where his initials and the date 1588 appear on one of the firebacks, and founded ‘Knight’s Charity’ with a £6 rent charge on Amery farm, Alton.
He died 2 Feb. 1621, the heir being his grandson George Gunter, son of his daughter Joan or Joanna Gunter. Knight’s will, drawn up in 1617, was proved eight days after his death. After a conventional preamble he gave detailed instructions about the administration of his charity. There were bequests of money, plate and rings to relatives and friends, and legacies, between £5 and £10 each, to several servants. The executor and residuary legatee was his brother Stephen, a clerk in the petty bag office, through whose children, by a settlement of 1598, Chawton descended. (N. M. Fuidge: History of Parliament )
The next official bio is that of the last of the male Knights of this line. The previous John Knight was his great-uncle.
SirRichard KNIGHT, (1639-79), of Chawton, Hants. Knighted 1668.
Family and Education: b. 21 Nov. 1639, o.s. of Richard Knight of Chawton by Elizabeth, da. of John Fielder of Burrow Court, Berks. educ. Queen’s, Oxf. 1657; G. Inn 1658; travelled abroad. m. c.1667, Priscilla, da. and h. of Sir Robert Reynolds of Elvetham, Hants, s.p. suc. fa. 1642; kntd. 10 Jan. 1668.Offices Held: Lt. of militia horse, Hants Nov. 1660, capt. 1668-d., lt.-col. of ft. by 1679, dep. lt. 1669-d.; freeman, Portsmouth and Winchester 1669, Lymington 1677; commr. for assessment, Hants 1673-d., wastes and spoils, New Forest 1679.
Knight’s ancestors had been substantial yeomen in Chawton since the reign of Edward II, and bought the freehold of the demesne in 1551. His great-uncle, John Knight, sat for Lymington in 1593. Knight’s father died before the Civil War, and he himself only came of age after the Restoration. But his sympathies were royalist; he was given a commission in the militia, though he never became a j.p.
He was probably the ‘Edward Knight, esquire of Chawton’ included in the list of proposed knights of the Royal Oak with an estate of £1,000 p.a. He was returned for Lymington at a contested by-election towards the end of the Cavalier Parliament. He was appointed to no committees, but marked ‘doubly vile’ by Shaftesbury, and entered on the government list of the court party.
It is not known whether he stood for the first Exclusion Parliament, but he was unsuccessful for Hampshire against the country candidates on 11 Aug. 1679. ‘What with a former indisposition and present drinking, poor man, he died the next day after.’ He was the last of the male line, but his heirs all took the name of Knight, two of them sitting for Midhurst in the 18th century.
The estate passed completely out of the Knight family when it was inherited by Thomas Brodnax May Knight. Brodnax twice changed his name by private Act of Parliament: in 1727 from Brodnax to May, under the will of his mother’s cousin, Sir Thomas May, M.P. (d.1718), on succeeding to the May estates; and in 1738 to Knight on inheriting the estates of his father’s cousin, Elizabeth Knight, widow of William Woodward Knight and Bulstrode Peachey. On the second occasion one Member (of Parliament) is alleged to have proposed ‘a general bill to enable that gentleman to take what name he pleased’. (A. N. Newman: History of Parliament )
And that was the end of the Knight Line that Lucian Lamar Knight juxtaposed against Capt. Peter Knight as though Peter might be descended from this family! We can see now that it is not possible and the Chawton Knights will likely have different Y-DNA lineage.
In fairness to Lucian, he did the best he could with the research tools available to him. I’ve found copies of letters he’s written to the War Department seeking information about Knights in the Revolution; he was diligent. This highlights the fact that nowadays, much better and more thorough and more accurate information can be much more easily obtained if people will only put a bit of effort into it instead of copying the old, most often wrong, family trees based on the ‘research’ of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Lucian Lamar Knight was wrong about a number of things, but at least he put work into it.
