On 2024-03-04 6:52 p.m., Roderick Ward wrote:
>
>> There is a corollary. The 1580 Cheshire visitation says that William,
>> son of 'Margery or Blanch" married Mary, daughter of John Savage. Were
>> this true and your hypothesis also correct, this would be a highly
>> unlikely first-cousin marriage. However, it would not surprise me at
>> all if the family had a memory of an ancestral Savage connection, and
>> mistakenly associated it with the wife of the wrong William.

> I think something like this is what happened. “Mary Savage” does not
> appear in the Savage pedigree in the 1580 visitation, although there are
> many other daughters in the supposed Mary’s generation given, with their
> marriages. Ormerod (vol. 2, p. 413), when discussing the numerous
> problems with the standard version of the marriages of the 15th century
> Stanleys of Hooton, notes that it is “no impeachment” that Mary Savage
> does not appear in Leycester’s pedigree of the Savages of Clifton, but
> it certainly doesn’t help. Tim Thornton, in his ODNB article on the
> Savages of Clifton, gives Sir John Savage (d. 1450) and Maud Swinnerton
> five sons (John, William, Arnold, George, and Roger) and only three
> daughters (Margaret, who married John Dutton; Maud, who married Sir
> Thomas Booth; and the Isabel Savage who married Robert Legh). The
> last-named Isabel, of course, is the one related in the 2nd degree to
> Isabel Stanley, daughter of William and Blanche, according to the
> dispensation.
>
> I wonder if any good evidence exists that William Stanley married a Mary
> Savage, apart from the 1580 visitation.
>
>
>
I guess I should mention that the Savage pedigree in the 1580 visitation
has a marriage of a Margaret Savage to a William Stanley of Hooton in
the next generation...

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 3/4/2024 3:57 PM, Roderick Ward wrote:

> I guess I should mention that the Savage pedigree in the 1580 visitation
> has a marriage of a Margaret Savage to a William Stanley of Hooton in
> the next generation...

Which, IIRC, sort of matches the Stanley pedigree that refers to the
wife of Sir Wm the younger as Margaret or Blanche Arderne, when it seems
she was Blanche Savage.

This is like the blind men and the elephant, with each pedigree
apparently having a little bit of the truth, but misinterpreted as
something else.

taf