Still working on the latin document and have picked my way through different parts of it. I have to think how families that were prominent managed. The Pedigree lists the son of Richard Blague/Blaake/Blake as Henry and there isn't anything (as there is with the Baynard) to show a break (i.e. generations missing) in that chart so his son was said to be Henry and that he was son and heir. Now in British families at this time primogeniture ruled the path so younger sons would go into the military, the church or parliament. If we assume that John was a younger son of Robert (we know this to be correct because the document names Robert Blake (deceased), Joan (unknown) Blake widow, and John the son) then Robert would have had to have been a younger son perhaps since there isn't a Robert on the chart for several generations and that Robert had a Fulling Mill at Quemberford and was married to Avice (Wallop) (Malewyn) Blake. The document is dated 1386 and we know John Blake I (as listed in the Parliamentary Archives died in 1395 leaving a son John (7 years of age and born in 1388 so he is not the John in the document). What I want to gain from the document is some notion of the age of this John Blake I but haven't achieved that thus far. Since Robert was an adult at the time of the first record that I bought in the 1330s then John Blake I was probably an older person when his son was born. The document synopsis states: "By Robert Devenyssh to Joan widow of Robert Blake and John her son of all his lands in Shawe by Savernake which he acquired from John Wyleye and Robert in Echelhampton. Witnesses: John Lye, John Warneford, John Webury, etc. Dated, Shawe, Fri Feast of St James [25 July] 10 Richard II [1386]. Seal. [Deed damaged by damp - text faint and illegible in places]."
Perhaps I should be interested in why Robert Devenyssh passed this property to Joan (perhaps he was more interested in it going to his grandson) but I am somewhat suspicious that he was her father and the property was actually going to John himself - no ideas on that but it was perhaps promised at the time of the marriage as part of a dower but to pass to a grandson but again I haven't read the entire document yet. We will see. Anyway wanted to put this down since I was thinking about it. I did do a blog on this Robert Blake determining his proof of life at various times and the first presence I found for him was around 1310 but he would have very young at the time as I was working backwards from a document in the 1330s when he was likely an adult. This Robert did not appear on the 1301 Pipe Rolls for Wargrave but a John le Blak was at Wargrave with Richard le Blak and his daughter Alice la Blake. Since John Blake I died in 1395 leaving a seven year old son John Blake II one is left to think he was possibly older (i.e. born in the 1330s) having served in Parliament a number of times - principally in the 1380s. That would perhaps place him in the 1380s in his late 40s or early 50s at that time if his father Robert was actually born circa 1310.
I want to have a look at the second document today as well. It is sharper and working with it will be easier. I will keep my blog up to date as I work away today.
Teatime.
The second document was labeled as a land grant but it has a jagged edge which I understand is usually an indenture but this is a document from 1353 and perhaps when it was a transfer of land between two people they also used that method of recording (which I have now verified; this was an exchange of two acres between two people). So I have begun and this is in much better condition (but I did know that the other had weak spots and fuzzy in places; they say it in the catalogue) and it is between Robert le Blake and another individual. So in 1353 he is old enough to be managing property. Neither his wife Joan or his son John are mentioned in this document. John Blake I would have been born perhaps not long after this although difficult to determine that but he is old enough in 1386 to be on the document so likely by the early 1360s. Moving forward slowly. It is a while since I have read latin documents and this is older latin than I am used to since the wills I transcribed in Latin were from the late 1400s to the early 1500s.
Is he the same Robert Blake all the way through? That is always the question in my mind but the land that is being discussed is Kemerford (an earlier name for Quemberford). It is sort of hard to believe that the Blake found at Quemberford in the early 1400s wouldn't be the same Blake family but it is still I think necessary to find as much as I can to support that this is a continuous line of Blake (same family) at Quemberford through the 1300s into the 1400s and still in the 1500s.
Good day thus far as I have done my Yoga, I cleared away the snow on the patios and then ran for 30 minutes and walked for 15 minutes. This afternoon, after a little more work, I will either do weightlifting or rowing.
We are not going to be hit with double digit snow levels this weekend only about 5 cm. Sounds good and the more the merrier. The snow is still not that deep in the yard, perhaps half of a metre and we need a metre and a half standing to really have good moisture in the spring.
An interesting find when I did a quick search on Quemberford:
https://www.oodwooc.co.uk/ph_quem_aub.htm
It is a short history of Quemerford and Pinhill and there isn't a mention of the Blake name until the 1600s at Pinhills. There is a discussion on Quemberford which is also rather interesting:
Wyly surname is on the grant that I am working on actually as a witness. But it is interesting that up to 1335 there is no mention of the Blake family being at Kemerford/Quemberford so this acquisition in 1353 is perhaps the beginning. I believe this plaque is in the Church at Quemberford and the image prepared by D. & M. Ball (as noted on the image above).
No comments:
Post a Comment