On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-4, Nathan Murphy wrote:
> > Should anyone wish to contact Gary about a particular royal line, feel
> > free to call him at NEHGS in Boston. As I recall, he works the
> > reference desk there on Thursday nights from 6 to 9 and welcomes calls
> > from private individuals during that time.
> >
> > His number is: (617) 536-5740
> >
> > Dial "O" for the operator, and ask for Mr. Roberts.
> Additional documents cast further doubt on the Thomas Warren royal descent.
>
> Thomas Warren (1621-1670), a seventeenth-century burgess in Surry County, Virginia, has long been thought to be a son of William Warren, Gentleman, of Ripple, Kent, England by his wife Catherine Gookin.[1] William Warren did indeed have a son christened Thomas at Ripple on 30 January 1624[/5].[2] In Virginia, Thomas gave his age as 40 in a deposition dated 1661, calculating an approximate year of 1621 for his birth.[3] It would fit chronologically for him to be the Thomas Warren whose headright Capt. Daniel Gookin [Jr..] claimed in Virginia in the 1640s.[4] Daniel was Catherine (Gookin) Warren’s first cousin.[5] In this scenario, Thomas would have been a first cousin once removed to Daniel Gookin. But that is not the case.
>
> William Warren’s youngest son, Thomas Warren, was in line to inherit half of his father’s lands in Kent “in the nature and tenure of gavelkind.” William died a lunatic, intestate, in about 1636.[6] In 1647, William’s younger brother, John Warren, Gentleman, of Gray’s Inn, Middlesex sued William’s eldest son and heir, Albertus Warren, over a bond, in chancery. In this suit, it is recorded that William’s only other son was Thomas Warren and that “About a year and a half ago the said Thomas Warren departed this life without any issue of his body lawfully begotten.”[7] In 1658, Albertus Warren again informs the Lord Chancellor of England that he is the “brother and heir of Thomas Warren, late the other son and co-heir of the said William Warren.”[8]
>
> The Virginia burgess possibly fits elsewhere in the Warren family of Ripple, Kent. For the royal descent in RD900 to hold,[9] however, it would be necessary for Thomas Warren to be the son of one of his presumed uncles: (1) Thomas Warren (bp. 1603/4),[2] whose residence as an adult is unknown, or (2) John Warren, of Gray's Inn, Middlesex (bp. 1609/10,[2] PCC sentence dated 1662).[10] This Thomas would have been 17 and John would have been 11 at about the time of the Virginian’s birth.
>
> References
> [1] Arthur Adams and H.H. d’Angerville, Living Descendants of Blood Royal 1 (1959):186-189; J.O. Buck, A.E. Langston, and T.F. Beard, eds., Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne’s Descendants 3 (1978):308-311.
> [2] Ripple, Kent, England, parish registers, images, www.findmypast.co.uk..
> [3] John Frederick Dorman, Adventurers of Purse and Person 3 (2007):227, who cites Surry Co. Deeds, Wills &c. 1 (1652-72):169.
> [4] Virginia Land Office Patents 1 pt2, p. 847.
> [5] C 8/125/201; 1619 Visitation of Kent, pp. 38, 48; Richard N. Gookins, A History and Genealogy of the Gookin Family of England, Ireland, and America (rev. ed., 1991).
> [6] C 8/126/240; C 8/125/201; C 5/34/65; no PCC or ACC will.
> [7] C 8/125/201.
> [8] C 5/34/65.
> [9] Gary Boyd Roberts, The Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants 2 (2018):778-79.
> [10] PCC 74 Laud (1662) f. 169, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/5111/40611_310351-00314/719800 (indexed John Warrer): John has a PCC sentence, but I have not been able to locate the corresponding nuncupative will. In the sentence, his wife Elizabeth, and daughter Elinor Grimes are mentioned.. London St Mary Mounthaw, parish registers, images, www.ancestry.co.uk : Richard Grimes married Ellinor Warren in 1655, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/1624/31281_a102016-00003 .
>
> With special thanks to Simon Neal for retrieving and abstracting these chancery records.
>
>
> C 6/138/217
>
> Documents:
> Bill of complaint.
> Writ
> Abbreviated copy of bill of complaint.
> The answer of Edward Boys.
>
> Date: 1634.
>
> Parties: John Warren, one of the younger sons of John Warren, late of the parish of Ripple, Kent, gentleman, deceased, v Edward Boys of Bonnington in the parish of Godonstone, Kent, gentleman.
>
> Selected details: The said John Warren, the orator’s father has or had by Anne his wife, eldest daughter of Sir William Crayfford of Wingham, Kent, knight, eight children, viz William, Thomas, the orator and Edward Warren, his sons, and Anne, Elizabeth, Alice and Afra, his four daughters.
> The said John, on or about the 27th September in the 10th year of the reign of James I, made his last will and testament in writing, and thereby gave to his sons the said Thomas, the orator and Edward £300 each at their several ages of 24 years. Provided that, if any of his said younger sons should depart this life before their said ages of 24 years, then their portions should be equally divided between the survivors. And in performance of the said last will and for payment of his debts and discharges of some of the legacies by him bequeathed, he made his said wife Anne his sole and only executrix, and gave and bequeathed to her all his moveable goods, except some particular parcels of household stuff and plate given to William his eldest son. And he also bequeathed to her the mean profits of all his lands and houses, wherein he had any estate of inheritance or any estate by lease until the said William should come to the age of 24 years. And he did particularly assign that the portions, which the said Anne his wife should pay, should be unto his two eldest daughters Anne and Elizabeth and to his said son Thomas and to the said orator, being £300 to each of them, in all £1,200, making other provision in and by the said last will for the payment of £300 to each of his said other younger children.
> Shortly after making the said will the orator’s said father died, and at the time of his death was possessed of a great and plentiful personal estate, amounting to the sum of £1,500, being sufficient to pay all the debts of the said John Warren the orator’s father and all the legacies contained in his will, including the said portion of £300 bequeathed to the said orator, and the £300 bequeathed to the said Thomas Warren, the orator’s brother. The orator’s mother proved the said will and possessed herself of all her late husband’s goods and personal estate. Soon after in about May 19 Jas. I the said Anne married Edward Boys of Bonnington in the parish of Godonstone, Kent, gentleman. Upon which marriage it was agreed that, as the said Edward should have the greatest part of the personal estate of the orator’s father, he should pay the legacies in the will, and that Anne should take the profits of the orator’s father’s lands.
> However, the said Edward Boys has taken away the said money and refused to pay the legacies.
> [Further details given].
>
>
> C 8/126/240
>
> Document: The answer of John Browne to the bill of complaint of Albert Warren.
>
> Date: 1645.
>
> Selected details: The defendant says that John Warren was lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the manor of Alkham alias Malmand Alkham with its rights and members, and with about 47 acres of land and pasture in the parish of Alkham, Kent. Being so seised, the said John Warren by his deed dated about 12th January 10 Jas. I [1613], for a valuable consideration in money paid to the said John by Robert Broome, clerk, granted and sold the said manor to the said Robert Browne and his heirs, which said deed was executed in due form of law and livery and seisin had and taken, and so Robert Broome was lawfully seised of the said manor and lands.
> John Warren, by deed dated about 20th January in the said 10th year, released all his right, title, claim and demand to the said manor to the said Robert Broome. The said Robert did peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the said manor and lands for diverse years after his said purchase. Afterwards the said Robert, by his deed dated on about 2 Oct 22 Jas. I [1624], for a valuable consideration paid by Thomas Browne and John Browne, son of Robert Broome, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to the said John Browne and Thomas Browne and their heirs the said manor. And the said John and Thomas were lawfully seised thereof. Then, by another deed dated 4 Oct 22 Jas. I [1624], he released all the right to the premises to the said John and Thomas. And the said John and Thomas always afterwards enjoyed the said manor and lands.
> The said Thomas Browne about 10 years ago died, and the said John Browne was lawfully seised in his demesne of the premises, and he held the lands in free and common socage of the nature and tenure of gavelkind. The said John Browne, by his will, devised two third parts of the premises to the defendant and his heirs, this defendant being the son of the said John Browne, and the third part thereof the said John Browne devised to John Browne, son of the said Thomas Browne, and his heirs.
> Shortly after the making of the said will, viz in about the month of March now last past, the said John Browne, the defendant’s said father, died, and the defendant entered into two parts of the premises and was lawfully seised thereof, and has held the same ever since and taken the profits thereof.
> The manor and lands are of the yearly value of £20 or thereabouts. He says that he does not know that the said John Warren was in his lifetime seised of the premises, as is pretended in the bill, or that the same were of the yearly sum of £40; or that the said John Warren, when he conveyed the premises to the said Robert Browne was weak of body or mind, or that the same was about three or four days before his death, or that the same was conveyed to the said Robert Broome by way of mortgage or for any trust or for little or no consideration, or whether the said John Warren made the said Robert Broome his executor, or that the said Robert Broome by that means or otherwise got into his hands all the deeds and evidences concerning the said manor and premises.
> The defendant does not know that the complainant was the son of William Warren or that the said William Warren was the son of John Warren or that the complainants or the said William Warren have or ever had any just right or title to the said manor and premises or to any part thereof, or that the said William Warren was a lunatic, or that his body and lands were committed to some friends. Nor does he know that the said Robert Broome did fear any sleeping title of the complainants.
> [Further details given].
>
>
> C 8/125/201
>
> Documents:
> Bill of complaint.
> The joint answers of George Waller and Albert Warren.
>
> Date: 1647.
>
> Parties: John Warren of Grays Inn, Midd, gentleman, v George Waller and Albert Warren.
>
> Selected details: Whereas William Warren, late of the parish of Riple, Kent, in his lifetime was justly and truly indebted to the orator in the sum of £300, and being so indebted, by his deed, dated on or about 24th April in the fourth year of the reign of the now king, did bind himself to the orator in the penal sum of £600 to be paid to the orator or his executors or administrators, upon condition that, if the said William Warren or his heirs paid to the orator £300 on 3rd September 1636, if the orator be then living, then the said deed obligatory was to be void. In his lifetime, the said William Warren married with Katherine Gookin, daughter of Thomas Gookin, esquire. And the said William Warren was in his lifetime lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee of a parcel of land called or known by the name of the Millfeild alias the Great Mill Field, containing about 20 acres, in Riple. And of and in one capital messuage, a barn, dwelling house, orchard, cottage and 82 acres of land, meadow and pasture or thereabouts. The said William Warren, being so seised of all the premises, several years before the said £300 became due, viz in or about the 11th year of the king’s reign, died so seised of the premises having issue, two only sons, viz Albert Warren, his eldest son, and Thomas Warren, his youngest son, both begotten of the body of the said Katherine, and both being infants at the time of the death of the said William Warren.
> From and after whose death the said Albert, being son and heir of the said William as to the said Millfeild, the said Albert or his guardian entered into the Millfeild took the issues and profits of the said Millfeild, until the said Albert attained the age of 21 years. And Albert did not attain the said age of 21 until after the first day of April in the 21st year of the reign of the now king. And from the death of the said William Warren the said Albert and Thomas his sons or some other on their behalf entered into the said messuage and the rest of the premises, and took the profits thereof, the premises being of the nature and tenure of gavelkind.
> About a year and a half ago the said Thomas Warren departed this life without any issue of his body lawfully begotten, the said Albert being his sole brother of the whole blood by father and mother. After whose death the said Albert or some other for his behalf did receive the profits of the said messuage and premises. The said sum of £300 mentioned in the condition of the said deed obligatory was not paid to the orator or his assigns on the 3rd day of September 1636 according to the tenor of the said condition, nor at any time before or since, although it has been several times demanded. Whereby the said deed obligatory became forfeited. Notwithstanding which by reason of the respective minorities of the said Albert and Thomas the orator could not effectually proceed at the law for recovery of his just debt with damages for the forbearance of the same until of late.
> On the 21st day of February in the said 21st year of the now king, the said Thomas Warren being dead, the orator caused an original writ in an action of debt of £600 upon the said deed obligatory to be sued forth the high court of Chancery against the said Albert as son and heir of the said William Warren, returnable in his majesty’s Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, although the orator used the uttermost of his endeavours by a legal compulsory course to enforce the said Albert’s appearance to answer to the orator upon the said action. Notwithstanding by means of the said Albert his delays the orator could not gain an appearance from him upon the said action.
> [Further details given].
>
>
> C 5/34/65
>
> Documents:
> Bill of complaint.
> The answer of John Warren.
> The replication of Albert Warren.
>
> Date: 1658.
>
> Parties: Albert Warren of Riple, Kent, gentleman, v John Warren.
>
> Selected details: Whereas John Warren does pretend that William Warren, the orator’s father, did, in April 4 Chas. I [1628], enter into a bond to the said John Warren of the penalty of £600, conditioned to pay the said John Warren the sum of £300 on 3rd September 1636, if the said John Warren should be then living, which is now about 22 years ago, which bond the said John Warren has lately put in suit against the orator as one of the sons and co-heirs of the said William Warren and brother and heir of Thomas Warren, late the other son and co-heir of the said William Warren, concerning lands held in gavelkind in Kent, whereas in truth, if there be any such bond, the same was obtained from the said William Warren, when he was a man of no disposing or understanding. And if there be any such bond, the same was gotten and obtained from the said William Warren without any just or valuable consideration, and by combination between the said John Warren and some other person or persons as yet unknown to the orator. And if there be any such bond and that the same was obtained when the said William was of a disposing memory and understanding and for good and valuable consideration, the said £300 or a great part thereof has been long since paid or satisfied by some person or persons unknown to the orator, or there has been some security or agreement given or made concerning the same, if your orator could discover the truth thereof, and there is no just cause why the orator should in equity be charged with the said bond, if any such there be, in case your orator could discover the truth of the premises. The said William Warren left a personal estate behind him sufficient to satisfy the said bond and all his just debts, which came to the disposal of his executors or administrators, whom the said John Warren did, would or might have sued and questioned in case the said bond had been just to be paid. But the said bond is now put in suit against the orator by the instigation, procurement and at the costs and charges of some person or persons, to whom the said John Warren is indebted, or is to have some of the money or land to be recovered, if any shall be, and without such recovery such person or persons have no expectation or little hope of being paid, and there has been some agreement in writing or otherwise between the said John Warren and some person or persons concerning the same, and the said bond, if any such be, has been delivered into the hands or custody of some person or persons, who is sure to have some benefit by the said bond or recovery thereupon.
> The orator requests that the said John Warren sets forth on his oath whether the said William Warren did enter into such bond unto the said John Warren or not, and what money or other consideration was given or paid for the same. [Further details given].
>
> Nathan