Guilielmi [William] Hotchkiss

Guilielmi [William] Hotchkiss (c1594-c1638)	John Hotchkiss (c1564-?)	John Hotchkiss (c1545-c1607)	Thomas Hotchkiss (c1512-1560)
		John Hotchkiss (c1545-c1607)	Anne (c1512-c1588)
		Elnor (c1545-c1617)
		Elnor (c1545-c1617)
	Elizabeth Gravenor (c1564-<1610)

Events

Notes

Note 1

!Source: www.findmypast.co.uk Record Transcription: England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991

——————————————————————————————-

This was published on the hotchkiss group on yahoogroups.com and is from a conversation with Jennifer Berger on 2 Sep 2017

——————————————————————————————-

Well, I can tell you that I’m the one who pulled the name “Grayette" out of the handwritten and almost impossible to read Much Wenlock Parish records of Thomas [abt. 1626] and Mary’s son Thomas [1646]. The writing was in such bad shape that it could also have been Davies, but it looked more like “Grayette”. This line went on in Madeley after that.

First, let’s go over the birthdate for Thomas which I gave as about 1626. His wife Mary’s is a bit easier, as her children were spread from 1646 to 1671, if she were born in about 1628, that would make her children born when she was from 18 to 43. I think we can say we have her birth year fairly close. Now Thomas couldn’t have been much younger than Mary, but he could possibly have been a few years older. Remembering that he died in 1671 leaving his wife pregnant, I would say from 1618 to 1628, would most likely take in the possibilities. For just a quick scan, looking at ancestry.com and eliminating duplicates, there are about 8 possible Thomas's.

Madeley’s Parish records fade into existence in 1638, even though the town existed since the 8th century. Much Wenlock grew up around a monastery founded in 680AD and actually once included much of what is now Madeley. In the 12th century the original monastery was replaced by a Cluniac priory, established by Roger de Montgomerie [Marcher Lord] after the Norman conquest, but the manor of Madeley belonged to the church of Wenlock, and passed to the Crown in 1540. Thus Wenlock Church records were a likely predecessor to Madeley Church records. The two towns are now about 8 miles apart. I mention all of this in order to point out that prior to the train and the automobile, travel was by horse, wagon or foot, unless you could use ships along the coast. A good horse on level terrain can make about 40 miles per day, pulling a wagon about 20, but 15 to 30 miles per day is a realistic amount if you aren’t pushing. I say this to note that it was not realistic to think that people regularly traveled far from their homes in those days. In fact there were laws that made it difficult to be in towns where you didn’t live or have business, with punishments such as being both publicly whipped and jailed. Thus if 2 records say Thomas and Mary Hotchkiss had a child within the woman’s child bearing years and in the same town or nearby towns which they might frequent, and there is nothing indicating there were 2 such couples, it is reasonable to assume it was likely the same family.

Now to look for a birth record for Thomas [abt. 1626] we need to remember the distance factor. Acton Burnell [for Roger] is about 8.7 miles on the other side of Much Wenlock, so might be a reasonable location. Now Leebotwood for Thomas [abt. 1626 with parents Roger and Elizabeth] is another 5.5 miles further [or 14.3 miles from Much Wenlock]. This might be a reasonable distance.

Now the question becomes, do we either have more evidence than just the baptism records [like a will or something], or are we far enough from those other 7 Thomas Hotchkiss births, that we might be able to assume this was the correct one just by location? Those possible locations, parents, baptism years and distance from Much Wenlock are:

I would say, based on this, we could probably drop the high and low years, which are all over 20 miles away, cutting it to 5 more likely candidates. Of these, Wroxeter actually has the best statistics so far.

Now the next question, is are any of these Thomas’s otherwise engaged? Do we have wives and children of a Thomas at their location? From 1646 to 1666 we find Thomas Hotchkiss’s recorded as fathers in where each x represents a record, but not trying to eliminate duplicates.

Wem xxxxxxx Baschurch 9, Bishop’s Castle 37, Wroxeter 16, High Ercall 10, Leebotwood 22

Clungunford xxxxx Baschurch 33, Bishop’s Castle 12, Wroxeter 27, High Ercall 32, Leebotwood 14

Madeley xxxxxxx Baschurch 27, Bishop’s Castle 34, Wroxeter 13, High Ercall 15, Leebotwood 27

Sherriff Hales xx Baschurch 28, Bishop’s Castle 43, Wroxeter 16, High Ercall 14, Leebotwood 28

Culmington x Baschurch 34, Bishop’s Castle 15, Wroxeter 23, High Ercall 33, Leebotwood 15

Ratlinghope x Baschurch 24, Bishop’s Castle 17, Wroxeter 19, High Ercall 30, Leebotwood 6

Upton Magna x Baschurch 13, Bishop’s Castle 29, Wroxeter 4, High Ercall 5, Leebotwood 14

Ledbury North x Baschurch 32, Bishop’s Castle 3, Wroxeter 26, High Ercall 30, Leebotwood 13

Clearly we can cross St. Chad’s and Norbury off our list. Are any of the others nearby enough to the other Thomas birthplaces to be eliminated by this means?

1625 Leebotwood, Shropshire, England Roger & Elizabeth 14.3 mi Ratlinghope 6 mi, Ledbury North 13

1626 High Ercall,Shropshire,England Richard & Beatrice 15.4 mi Upton Magna 5 mi, Wem 10

1626 Wroxeter, Shropshire, England Guilielmi & Margaret 8.1 mi Upton Magna 4 mi, Madeley 13

1628 Bishops Castle,Shropshire,England Richard & Elizabeth 25.5 mi Ledbury North 3 mi, Clungunford 12

1628 Baschurch,Shropshire,England Vincet & Mary 23.9 mi Wem 9,mi, Upton Magna 13

Wroxeter and High Ercall are both very close to Upton Magna. The child born there was named Richard, and the father of the Thomas from High Ercall is Richard, so I’m voting those two go together, leaving Wroxeter available.

So the closest Thomas about 1625 birth to Much Wenlock is Wroxeter and Wroxeter is also the closest to Madeley where Thomas about 1625 had most of his children and he appears not be taken elsewhere. All the other choices do appear to be busy elsewhere.

Thus, I think our Thomas’ father was more likely to be Guilielm, which is an early version of William, unless there is better evidence. This why I had not gone back further.

——————————————————————————————-

This was published on the hotchkiss group on yahoogroups.com and is from a conversation with Jennifer Berger on 3 Sep 2017

——————————————————————————————-

One more point on following English records back into the 1500’s: parish records were sporadic at best. Very few churches kept records, and if they did, they were just of the nobility, and if records were kept of the nobility, they might be by their real surnames, or by their titles from the land they held. So in my previous response, we don’t even know if I had records for all the possible Thomas baptisms, even if ancestry happened to have all the extant records.

Also, don’t forget, very few people could even write. There was definitely no standard spelling. Thus there were hundreds of possible variations on the spelling and pronunciation of Hotchkiss. You can find many of these in the notes on the records on my website. So, even with the limited people actually recorded, searching for them by name is fraught with problems.

Thus, absent a direct record, such as a will listing relatives, or a heraldic visitation with a pedigree chart, or some other such legal record, it is virtually impossible to say “I know” about any earlier ancestry in England, beyond about King James and certainly beyond Queen Elizabeth [just read earlier than 1600].

The following is from Wikipedia, but you can find the same basic info in many places.

Parish registers were formally introduced in England on 5 September 1538 following the split with Rome, when Thomas Cromwell, minister to Henry VIII, issued an injunction requiring the registers of baptisms, marriages and burials to be kept. Before this, a few Roman Catholic religious’ houses and parish priests had kept informal notes on the baptisms, marriages and burials of the prominent local families. This injunction was addressed to the rector or vicar of every parish in England. However, this order had nothing to do with religious doctrine or the papacy and rather indicated the desire of the central -government to have full knowledge of the population of the country.[4] The book was to be kept in a "sure coffer" with two locks and keys. A fine of 3 sols, 4 deniers was to be levied for failure to comply. Many parishes ignored this order as it was commonly thought that it presaged a further tax.

Finally, in 1597, both Queen and Convocation reaffirmed the injunction, adding that the registers were of ‘permagnus usus’ and must be kept in books of parchment leaves. Previous records [most found in a less durable form] had to be copied into the new books and copies of each year’s entries had to be sent to the bishop’s registrar. The parish clerk was paid to copy the old records into a new parchment book in order to keep the record up to date.[5]

During the English Civil War [1643–1647] and in the following Commonwealth period, records were poorly kept and many are now missing after being destroyed [bored by beetles, chewed by rats or rendered illegible by damp] or hidden by the clergy. This parsimony and neglect was remedied by depositing the registers in county record offices where they were safeguarded and made accessible….

Guilielmi [William] Hotchkiss

Personal and Family Information

Pedigree Chart (3 generations)

Events

Notes

Note 1