Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stéphan carca on November 21, 2011 at 11:20am

All sounds highly improbable! What's the source for all these ladies dying on the same day?

Permalink Reply by dorthy logan-nichols on November 22, 2011 at 11:42am

mr duc

why would this be highly improbable????? because you don't believe... here is one source:

from 

Repository:

Name: Family History Library
Salt Lake City, UT 84150 USA

Title: Ancestral File (R)
Author: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Publication: Copyright (c) 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998

every genealogy site that has margaret avenell and her daughter and daughter in-law shows the (3) dying on the same day... 7 april 1499...

haven't you heard of wars, famine and other things that could kill more than one person on the same day.

thanks for your help......

Permalink Reply by Stéphan carca on November 23, 2011 at 4:49am

It's just unlikely that a mother, her daughter, and her daughter in law should all die on the same day, from, as you speculate, at least two different causes - childbirth and another cause. At this stage I neither believe nor disbelieve, which is why I asked for the source. A posting on Rootsweb isn't what I would regard as a reliable source - I was hoping for some contemporary record. I've seen too many online trees where someone makes an error, others copy it, and before you know where you are it's received wisdom.

In the case of Jane, wife of Charles Holcombe, the fact that many trees show her as marrying Charles 11 years after she died, and having two children 12 and 14 years after her supposed death makes me wonder how much thought the tree owners have put into it.

I've done enough medieval genealogy to make me question everything, and not to rely on what other people have put in their online trees.

Margaret Holcombe's Inquisition Post Mortem was held in the regnal year 14 Henry VII, which covered 22 Aug 1498 - 21 Aug 1499, so Margaret the mother's death date passes muster. Apparently Jane is apparently mentioned in the IPL of her husband Charles Holcombe - it would be interesting to see in what context: as his deceased wife or as his widow. And as for the daughter Margaret, I wouldn't expect there to be an IPM, and I wonder if some zealous descendant has inadvertently put down her mother's death date as hers, and the sheep mentality has then taken over with everyone else just copying it.

If you can give me primary sources I'll happily accept that all three died on the same day

Stéphan

Permalink Reply by Stéphan carca on November 23, 2011 at 9:19am

The National Archives online catalogue at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp has the following document:

Date 1529-32

John Carsewill, nephew, and Edmond, son of John Strobrigge. v. Jane, late the wife of Charles Holcombe, esquire.: Detention of deeds relating to land called `Rowston' in Axmouth, demised by the said Charles to the said John Strobrigge to the use of complainants, which defendant claims as her jointure.: Devon.

So Jane was alive after the death of Charles Holcombe in 1527.

And now, with contemporary evidence that Jane most definitely couldn't have died on 7 April 1499, you're right - I don't believe! Before, I merely had doubts.

Stéphan

Permalink Reply by David11000 on November 23, 2011 at 9:52am

The Visitation of the County of Devon 1620 at http://www.archive.org/details/visitationcount02camdgoog has a Holcombe pedigree on page 345, which shows Roger having only three children, Elizabeth, Joan and Charles (which doesn't mean to say that there weren't more children). No mention of a Margaret, which leads me to agree with Stephan that someone appears to have got confused and has added Margaret as being the daughter of Margaret, and has added the same death date.

An online tree, which I rarely if ever rely on, says that Ellis Holcombe, son and heir of Charles, was 12 years old or more in 1527 on the death of his father. This appears to have come from Charles' I.P.M., which you'd need to get a copy of from TNA to confirm. But be warned that it will be in latin.

Margaret's IPM may give her age/birth which looks to have been c1440-1449, in which case her age at death in 1499 would have been somewhere in the range of 50-60, so her cause of death could have been anything. Many online trees give her date of birth as 7 Apr 1449, exactly 50 years before her supposed death date. I wonder if her IPM said that she was 50.

David

Permalink Reply by dorthy logan-nichols on November 23, 2011 at 11:07am

mr duc

thank you for that information, i really appreciate it, and you are right about the marriage date..... and the sheep mentality.

again i say thank you! 

Permalink Reply by Just M on November 23, 2011 at 10:17am

WOW - Mr Stéphan Duc you are a true gentleman. And so is Mr David11000

Thanks for all the awesome help you both give on the site.

Permalink Reply by David11000 on November 24, 2011 at 2:01am

Flattery will get you everywhere!

It's nice to get a bit of medieval genealogy to look at for a change - more challenging, so even more satisfying when you get a result.

On a serious note, what surprises me are the literally hundreds of trees on Ancestry which have perpetuated this error. Anybody new coming to this family must think "well if all these people have this information it must be true". Online trees should be taken with copious pinches of salt, and should be used as a guide only

David