On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-8, lostcopper wrote:
> There are at least two very different pedigrees afoot for Joan Raleigh/
> Rawley, Heiress of Nettlecombe (d. 1435) who married Sir John
> Whalesborough (1369-1418).
> Devon Visitation has her as daughter of Sir John Raleigh of
> Nettlecombe & Worcester, b. before 1369 - d. before 1420, and his wife
> Ismania Hanham or Honnyng, d. 8 Sep 1420, daughter & heir of Simon
> Hanaps of Gloucester.. Sir John is given a lengthy detailed pedigree,
> his parents being shown as Sir John Raleigh of Nettlecombe & Anne
> Pomeroy; this Sir John being shown as son of Sir henry Raleigh & Agnes
> Lamborne; Sir Henry being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh &
> Margaret Botreaux; Sir William being shown as Sir John Raleigh & Joan
> Tracy; Sir John being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh & Lora
> Peverel; Sir William being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh & Joan
> Stokhay; this Sir William being shown as sonw of Peter Raleigh &
> Margaret Daubeney; Peter's father shown as William Raleigh, son of Sir
> Hugh Raleigh who received Nettlecombe from John FitzGilbert.
> Burke's Landed Gentry, on the other hand, says that Joan was the
> daughter of Sir John Raleigh, alive in 1369 and his wife Ismayn
> Hanaps. There is a detailed pedgiree for this Sir John here, as well,
> but with very different participants. Sir John is shown as son of John
> Raleigh & Margaret Bret; John is shown as son of Henry Raleigh & NN;
> Henry is shown as son of Sir Simon Raleigh, d. before 1318, & Joan
> Tort of Owknolle; Sir Simon being shown as son of Simon Raleigh & Ela
> de Reigny of Glamorgan; this Simon being shown as son of Sir Warine
> Raleigh & Hawise; Sir Warine being shown as son of Warine Raleigh &
> Margaret; Warine shown as having descended from the same Sir Hugh
> Raleigh who received Nettlecombe.
> Does anyone have a special insight as to which of these (if either) is
> the more likely? Thank you, Bronwen

Hi, I was reading Transactions of Devon Vol 32, 309-140. This Volume is really extensive on Raleigh pedigree specifically of Sir Walter Raleigh. One thing it does is blow the Vivian Visitations 1620 out of the water. In Holland II and III, which by modification he adopts (using Pole along with it) it gives Peter Raleigh and Dawney dates of Peter 1310-1367 and Dawney married to him, about 1340. So this connection you have des not work. However, this item says there was another Peter of Nettlecomb much earlier. So it may be this one, but he did not marry Dawney. He married Matilda sister and heir of John Braybrooke, and was shown on the Curia Regis rolls of 1229-1230 Petrus and his wife Matilda (See page 327, so if we began with him and carried on, we may come to the correct dating. I am just trying to be helpful, as I still have a number of Raleigh Relatives to attach. Cheers. Betty

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-8, Betty Gorrie wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-8, lostcopper wrote:
> > There are at least two very different pedigrees afoot for Joan Raleigh/
> > Rawley, Heiress of Nettlecombe (d. 1435) who married Sir John
> > Whalesborough (1369-1418).
> > Devon Visitation has her as daughter of Sir John Raleigh of
> > Nettlecombe & Worcester, b. before 1369 - d. before 1420, and his wife
> > Ismania Hanham or Honnyng, d. 8 Sep 1420, daughter & heir of Simon
> > Hanaps of Gloucester.. Sir John is given a lengthy detailed pedigree,
> > his parents being shown as Sir John Raleigh of Nettlecombe & Anne
> > Pomeroy; this Sir John being shown as son of Sir henry Raleigh & Agnes
> > Lamborne; Sir Henry being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh &
> > Margaret Botreaux; Sir William being shown as Sir John Raleigh & Joan
> > Tracy; Sir John being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh & Lora
> > Peverel; Sir William being shown as son of Sir William Raleigh & Joan
> > Stokhay; this Sir William being shown as sonw of Peter Raleigh &
> > Margaret Daubeney; Peter's father shown as William Raleigh, son of Sir
> > Hugh Raleigh who received Nettlecombe from John FitzGilbert.
> > Burke's Landed Gentry, on the other hand, says that Joan was the
> > daughter of Sir John Raleigh, alive in 1369 and his wife Ismayn
> > Hanaps. There is a detailed pedgiree for this Sir John here, as well,
> > but with very different participants. Sir John is shown as son of John
> > Raleigh & Margaret Bret; John is shown as son of Henry Raleigh & NN;
> > Henry is shown as son of Sir Simon Raleigh, d. before 1318, & Joan
> > Tort of Owknolle; Sir Simon being shown as son of Simon Raleigh & Ela
> > de Reigny of Glamorgan; this Simon being shown as son of Sir Warine
> > Raleigh & Hawise; Sir Warine being shown as son of Warine Raleigh &
> > Margaret; Warine shown as having descended from the same Sir Hugh
> > Raleigh who received Nettlecombe.
> > Does anyone have a special insight as to which of these (if either) is
> > the more likely? Thank you, Bronwen
> Hi, I was reading Transactions of Devon Vol 32, 309-140. This Volume is really extensive on Raleigh pedigree specifically of Sir Walter Raleigh. One thing it does is blow the Vivian Visitations 1620 out of the water. In Holland II and III, which by modification he adopts (using Pole along with it) it gives Peter Raleigh and Dawney dates of Peter 1310-1367 and Dawney married to him, about 1340. So this connection you have des not work. However, this item says there was another Peter of Nettlecomb much earlier. So it may be this one, but he did not marry Dawney. He married Matilda sister and heir of John Braybrooke, and was shown on the Curia Regis rolls of 1229-1230 Petrus and his wife Matilda (See page 327, so if we began with him and carried on, we may come to the correct dating. I am just trying to be helpful, as I still have a number of Raleigh Relatives to attach. Cheers. Betty

Well, someone's wise words about Collinson History of Somerset . It is Volume 3, and it has the route of Joan to Whalesboroiugh, and I can say a lot of what is above is not included while some of them are. It is best just to download this section. It ties onto TDA Vol 32, so it is worth the read.