Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
- From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Keeping with the lineage: as much of a naif, as I am, I just
Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, was the *grandson*
Of John Leeke, of Beccles, and named executor in his
grandfather's will. Of course, that means that John Leeke's
dau. was Robert Peck's mother, and his mother was married
to *a* Peck. So, no doubt,there ought to be other documents,
in Yorkshire or Suffolk which would shed light on that Peck,
if it is not Henry Peck, the aforementioned, who had a wife
Margery, and son Robert. And even IF it were Henry Peck,
of nearby Carlton Colville, we would still have the IDENTITY
question looming: was the Henry Peck of Carlton Colville
IDENTICAL to the man who married John Leeke's daughter
and was he the son of Richard Peck and Alice Middleton?
It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been, despite
the one day distance by horse from Yorkshire. We know that
Richard Peck by primogeniture willed his land to his first son
John. But what about the other son of the two sons of Richard
Peck who married Alice Middleton? Because he was the less-
willed son, second by nature, who would take care of him?
Would it not be the father-of-the-bride? And primogeniture
sons by their very nature, heirs of the land, would stay locally
with the land. And the other sons by their very nature, as the
daughters, would have to move away? Leave the natural pack,
and receive largess of fathers-in-laws? Am I understanding
this English system correctly in accordance with the times?
So: we have theoretical Henry, second son of Alice Middleton,
and daughters, moving to where the fathers-in-law would
grant them land and holdings? So: what is wrong with the
scenario of this proposed pedigree? Nothing: except proof?
Indeed. So: I submit, unless my logic is faulty, and I stand
to be corrected, the plausibility still exists that this is a viable
pedigree, wanting proof? It does not seem unreasonable to
me that the Pecks of Yorkshire became the Pecks of the
largess of John Leeke of Beccles, and the second son followed
his bride south to Carlton Colville and nearby Beccles. I
seem to recall that William I "The Lion" King of Scotland
himself was involved with a number of ladies other than
his wife of-the-time: and fathered distant relatives, only
a day's horse ride away? Unless, I am mistaken? And what
was good for a king might good for a knight or a lesser
Awaiting a *nice* scholar, or scholarly scholar interested
in solving a pedigree puzzle, for finding proof! After all,
the father of Robert Peck, the Elder, was a Peck, by definition.
Only his identity is lacking: for we KNOW he married the daughter
of John Leeke of Beccles. Cannot argue with that fact, according
to primary documents. And we cannot argue with that other fact,
according to other primary documents that Richard Peck and his
wife Alice Middleton had another son, unnamed and unfound,
at this point. Why cannot scholars solve this missing IDENTITY
in their Medieval midst? What are they afraid of finding: more
skeletons? Is that not the stuff of this stuff? I read among your
posts that there is bitter dispute about these matters. So: solve
this one. It is a worthy lineage of pursuit, or have none of you
checked out the ancestors of Eustacia Plumpton? Go ahead:
compete over something worth competing over.
I award the First Annual Pedigree Prize of the Gen-Medieval Society
and Academy of Scholars to the recipient finder!
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- Prev by Date: Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northampton
- Next by Date: Re: Middleton of Yorkshire to Peck of Suffolk?
- Previous by thread: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
- Next by thread: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters