Richard of Ollerton Baguley - The Baguley tree gap

if we break the tree then we would not be able to follow the Baguley name back to other ancestors, a line that is "probably" or might be somewhat accurate". I don't know if its genealogically acceptable but could we add three generations of males and label them "Probable Missing Generation" with a note on each summarizing the reason?

Name them all "NN Baguley".

They are not "probably missing" they definitely existed, we just don't know anything about them beyond the fact that they MUST have existed.

I'd insert four generations between John and Richard, that gives each generation an average age of 30 when the next generation is born.

My question is whether you had to be of blood decent from Baguley to carry this name. Could you marry into the family and start using "of Baguley" in the 1300s and 1400s. David do you know if anyone has been DNA tested in this line? If they were tested would it answer this question? I must admit to not be knowledgable in this area. Perhaps Justin Durand or Erica Howton can answer these questions.

I'm not that great on the genetics at this level but I do know that more than 2 "unknowns" is a genealogical no no. This is a marginal period in history for surnames. I know nothing about the family history but the ownership of the manor has been tracked? The surname could easily accompany lordship of the manor - cousins, in law's, upstart, purchase, donation ...?

And yes, of course the surname could have been acquired, and that person have become "the Baguley at Ollerton" while the "bloodline" went elsewhere.

Our shared standards frown on creating profiles just for the purpose of linking profiles. In every case I've seen, they've ended up being cut. The only time they are arguably acceptable is when there is a case where one person is named in a contemporary document as a grandchild (or niece / nephew) of another.

A far better way to do it is create a link in the two overviews, describing the evidence for the relationship.

Linda, to answer your specific question about whether someone could marry into the Baguley family and get the surname -- yes, definitely. And it was even more complicated than that.

In the 1100s through the 1300s there are many references to servants who used the surnames of their masters. There seems to have been a time early on when the surname might have applied to everyone in the household, although this is just one competing theory.

In the same time period, before surnames were fully stable, men often adopted the surname of their wives and mothers, particularly when she was an heiress and the bulk of their property came from her.

This is also related to another custom in the time before surnames were stable. When the surname was derived from a place name (such as Baguley), successive owners might change to that surname to advertise that it was the caput ("capital") of their holdings. Usually these owners were all relatives in some way, but there are a couple of cases where there seems to have been a complete break in the line.

I don't think in the case of the Baguleys that there is any real doubt that the later owners were lineal descendants of the earlier owners. I could be wrong about that. But, I think it's worth waiting to make the connection until we have the evidence for it.

This is a period where the connection should be easy to make if someone takes time to look at some local histories.

Somehow in my rush to finish I left off one other possibility.

In the days when surnames were being adopted, anyone from Baguley might be called "of Baguley" or "de Baguley". The lord of the manor as well as a peasant in the next town. The surname could then become hereditary in two very different families. If the peasant's family prospered a few hundred years later and 100 miles away, you can bet that his descendants claimed to be descendants of the manorial Baguleys ;)

I stand corrected but surely the current situation is unacceptable, if "filler" profiles are a no-no then breaking the connection seems the logical step.

And really - linkage "can" be retained through links in the profile overviews and other information (documents). It should spark the research efforts!

Yes, I think this connection should be broken until it can be re-created the correct way. I have some notes on this family, but I'll have to beg off for the moment. I don't have time to dig them out and try to piece this together. I'm really hoping someone else will come forward.

Do you have any pointers to give us for where we could look for this info, Justin Durand. I would love to try to find the missing links.

My first thought is the Victoria County History series. It has a multi-volume set for each county (each one they did, anyway). The volumes are subdivided into sections on individual locations. They aren't organized genealogically but it's often possible to extract outline genealogies from the articles that tell the history of different properties.

The Victoria County Histories are available many places online, but the easiest to access (I think) is British History Online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/Default.aspx

Thank you, Justin Durand. I'll see what I can find.

'Townships: Levenshulme', A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4 (1911), pp. 309-310. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41430&strqu... Date accessed: 21 March 2014.

Confirms the info in the pedigree; I don't see that it adds anything new?

But chasing footnotes" refers to "Ormerod, Ches. (ed. Helsby), i, 550"

Bibliography page for Cheshire history

http://www.thornber.net/cheshire/htmlfiles/books.html

"The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, incorporated with a republication of King's Vale Royal and Leycester's Cheshire Antiquities, by George Ormerod, 2nd Ed., revised and enlarged by Thomas Helsby, Esq., published by George Routledge and sons, Ludgate Hill, London, 1882. This is now available from the Family History Society of Cheshire on CD ROM. A reprint of the work was published by Eric Morten of Didsbury."

I believe there's an archive stream version

What about a search for Ollerton in this same series? It might be the place to look for an account of how the Baguleys aquired Ollerton, so might give more on this branch.

By the settlement named Sir William de Baguley and his son John arranged that in default of other issue the estate was to go in succession to William, John, and Geoffrey sons of Sir John de Legh of the Booths in Knutsford; Sir John had married Isabel (or Ellen) daughter of Sir William. On John de Baguley's death William de Legh succeeded accordingly; Ormerod, Ches. (ed. Helsby), i, 550, where an account of the family of Legh of Baguley is given. The date of the deed as given by Sir Peter Leycester appears doubtful in view of the other dates—e.g. that William de Legh was under age in 1359.
John Savage and Margery his wife in 1359 claimed twenty messuages, &c., in Withington against William son of Sir John de Legh; Duchy of Lanc. Assize R. 7, m. 4d.
5 William de Legh of Baguley, who died in Dec. 1435, held ten messuages, 200 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, and 4 acres of waste in Levenshulme in Withington of Nicholas son and heir of Sir Ralph de Longford, by homage, fealty, escuage, and a rent of 4s.; it was recorded that Thomas de Legh, father of William, had done his homage for the lands, &c., to Sir Nicholas de Longford, father of Sir Ralph. The estate was worth 20 marks a year; Edmund, the son and heir of William, was one year old; Towneley MS. DD, no. 1482.
Sir John Legh, son of Edmund, in 1505 settled a tenement in Levenshulme on his illegitimate son John for life; Ormerod, Ches. i, 552.
In 1566 Edward Legh made a settlement of the manor of Levenshulme and thirty messuages, lands, &c., there and in Withington; Pal. of Lanc. Feet of F. bdle. 28, m, 263. Ten years later he appears to have made a settlement or mortgage of a portion of the estate; ibid. bdle. 38, m. 15. Shortly afterwards Margaret Vaudrey, claiming by conveyance from Edward Legh, had a dispute with the lessees of William Radcliffe concerning lands in Levenshulme; there were some later suits; Ducatus Lanc. (Rec. Com.), iii, 60, 86, 170, 230 (1577 to 1588). She was probably the Margaret daughter of Robert Vawdrey whose 'dishonest and unclean living' was censured by her father in his will; Piccope, Wills (Chet. Soc.), ii, 84.
Richard Legh, son and heir of Gerard Legh of Baguley, and others in 1604 granted a lease of lands to Thomas Holme of Heaton Norris; note by Mr. E. Axon (quoting T. Holme's will).
The manor and lands were in 1619 in possession of John Gobart (of Coventry) and Lucy his wife; Pal. of Lanc. Feet of F. bdle 95, no. 39. They left three daughters and co-heirs—Frances wife of Sir Thomas Barrington; Anne wife of Thomas Legh of Adlington; and Lucy wife of Calcot Chambrie; Visit. of Warw. (Harl. Soc.), 293; Earwaker, East Ches. ii, 252.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41430#n4

I disconnected Richard from John. I'm hoping the missing links will be found someday, but haven't found them so far.

3 Final Conc. (Rec. Soc. Lancs. and Ches.), i, 211.
For pedigrees of the Hydes and Clarkes of Norbury see Ormerod, Ches. (ed. Helsby), iii, 810, and Earwaker, East Ches. ii, 44–7; also Booker, Denton (Chet. Soc.), 136. A number of the family charters are preserved in Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 162–8; from these it appears that Robert de Hyde (son of Robert son of Matthew) married Margery daughter of Robert son of Robert de Stockport; ibid. fol. 165, 153. The following early deeds relate to Haughton:—
John son of Agnes de Herdislee, cousin of Thomas de Norbury, released to Robert de Hyde all his claim in Norbury, Newton, half of Hyde, Haughton, four oxgangs of land in Heaton, and Sakelcross; fol. 165. Of these Hyde and Haughton are not named in the grant by Richard de Norbury to Robert de Hyde (father of the above Robert); fol. 164. Thomas son and heir of Richard son of Matthew de Hyde released to John lord of Hyde all his lands in the vill of Haughton; fol. 164.
William son of Richard de Baguley allowed Robert son of John (sic) de Hyde to make a millpool on land in Hyde for the benefit of Haughton Mill, at a rent of a clove gillyflower; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 165. William lord of Baguley gave a similar but more liberal permission to John de Hyde in free marriage with Isabel his daughter; fol. 162. These were the John and Isabel of the fine above referred to; they occur in an earlier licence of agreement (1306) respecting lands in Haughton; De Banco R. 161, m. 56.
Simon de Gousill gave Thomas de Macclesfield the wardship of the heir of John son of Robert de Hyde in Denton and Haughton; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 162.
Alexander de Hyde, the brother of John, was ancestor of the Hydes of Denton.
4 Sir John de Hyde in 1357 made a settlement of his manors, including Haughton, with remainders to Roger son of Margaret daughter of Sir John de Davenport (apparently the first wife of Sir John), and to William, Robert, Ralph, Hugh and Margery, brothers and sisters of Roger; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 163. Four years later John son of William Hulcockson de Baguley (a feoffee) granted to Sir John de Hyde and Alice his wife the manor of Haughton, with remainder to William de Hyde son of Margaret de Davenport and to Robert, Hugh and Margery as above; fol. 163 d., 163. At this time William the son of Sir John was espoused to Ellen daughter of Richard de Bramhall, and Haughton is named in the settlement; fol. 163b.
The feoffees of Robert son of John de Hyde restored to him his manor of Haughton in 1377; ibid. fol. 163b. It thus appears that the elder brothers, Roger and William, had died without issue. Ralph, another brother, was ancestor of the Hydes of Urmston. Robert de Hyde in 1401 made a feoffment of his manors, including Haughton; fol. 165 d.
A claim for debt was made against John Hyde in 1445; Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 7, m. 1b. His grandson John, the son of Hamlet son of John Hyde, was in 1453–4 contracted to marry Margaret daughter of William Booth son of Sir Robert; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 166. Ten years later (3 Edw. IV) Hamlet Hyde of Norbury made a feoffment of all his manors and lands in Haughton, except certain held by Robert Shepley and others; this was for the benefit of Joan his wife; ibid. fol. 167. In 1478 a remainder to Peter Hyde for life was granted; ibid. fol. 166 d.
Settlements of the manor of Haughton with messuages, lands, &c., there were made by Edward Hyde in 1648, by Edward Hyde and Katherine his wife in 1698, and by the Hon. George Clarke in 1752; Pal. of Lanc. Feet of F. bdle. 144, m. 24; 240, m. 67; 349, m. 68.

Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41433

From a later period but thought descendant might want to read it anyways......

XL.—GREAT QUEEN STREET CHAPEL (Demolished).

General description and date of structure.

Before its destruction in 1910 the Wesleyan Chapel in Great Queen Street occupied the greater portion of the sites of three houses with their gardens. These were Nos. 66 to 68, intervening between Conway House and the stream which divided Aldwych Close from Purse Field.

The land on which these three houses were erected was roughly the shape of a truncated right–angled triangle, the base of which was represented by Great Queen Street, the perpendicular by the line of Middle Yard, and the hypotenuse by the course of the stream. The land in question was leased (fn. 1) by Newton to Peter Mills (fn. 2) , of Christchurch, London, bricklayer, and it would seem that at that date (15th September, 1639) no houses had been erected thereon. (fn. 3) The building was therefore carried out probably in 1640; at any rate No. 66 is known to have been occupied in December, 1641. No information can be gleaned from the ratebooks as to when the three houses were rebuilt, but at least one (No. 67) seems to have been still standing at about 1817, when an illustration of it was included in Parton's Hospital and Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.

The first reference that has been found to the building of a chapel of ease for the parish occurs in the Vestry Minutes under the year 1693: (fn. 4) "Ordered, to inquire of the gentry in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which of them will take pews in case a chappell should be erected in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn Fields, and report to be made to the next Vestry." It was, however, left to private enterprise to provide such a building.

In 1706 a Mr. Baguley took a house (apparently No. 67) (fn. 5) , built a chapel in the rear, and seems even to have officiated therein, although not in Priest's orders. Naturally enough, he soon got into trouble with the Rector of St. Giles, who, as Baguley affirmed, (fn. 1) induced the vendor of the house and land to break off his agreement with Baguley, and sell to "one Burges, a coachmaker." According, however, to the ratebooks the house occupied by Burges was No. 68. Between 1720 and 1723 the assessment of No. 68 also dropped. Whether this implies an extension of the chapel over a portion of the ground in the rear of that house is uncertain, but it will be seen that when the chapel comes, as it were, into the light of day, at the beginning of the 19th century, it covers nearly the whole of the rear of both houses.

The whole of its early history, however, is shrouded in obscurity, and no reference to it or to the services held therein has been found between 1728 (fn. 2) and its acquisition by the Rev. Thomas Francklyn. Even the date at which this occurred cannot be definitely stated. The chapel seems to have been in his hands in February, 1758, for on the 17th of that month he preached a sermon there, which he published in the same year. (fn. 3) In 1759 his name appears in the parish ratebook in connection with the chapel. (fn. 4) His residence at the house (No. 67) does not seem to have begun until 1761. On Francklyn's death in 1784, his executors appear to have carried on the work of the chapel. On 19th July, 1798, Mrs. Francklyn's executors sold to the Society formerly carrying on the West Street Chapel, Seven Dials, their leasehold interest in the two houses and the chapel for £3,507 Ios. (fn. 5)

The chapel was at that time, says Blott, (fn. 6) a very homely structure; it was dark, and, lying below the level of the street, could not easily be kept clean, and the entrance to it was by a passage through a dwelling house. The surrounding houses overlooking it were at times a means of annoyance during service. Negotiations were therefore entered into with the owners of No. 66, and on 14th March, 1815, a purchase was effected of the whole of the back part of the premises, bounded by Middle Yard on the one side and the old chapel on the other, and having a length of 102½ feet and a breadth of 31 feet. (fn. 7) The new chapel was opened on 25th September, 1817. (fn. 8) Alterations were carried out in 1840, when an improved frontage and new portico were constructed. (fn. 1)

The elevation to Great Queen Street (Plate 32) was of brick faced with stucco, the lower part having a portico of four Greek Ionic columns the full width of the building, executed in Talacre stone from North Wales. (fn. 1) Above this, in the main wall of the chapel was a three-light window with Corinthian columns and pilasters supporting an entablature, over which was a semi-circular pediment and tympanum. Crowning the whole was a bold modillion cornice.

The interior (Plate 33) had a horseshoe gallery supported by Ionic columns; above the back of the side galleries were other smaller galleries. Facing the entrance was an apse ornamented with Corinthian columns, pilasters and entablature carrying an elliptical arch. Covering the whole area was a flat ornamental ceiling.

There is preserved by the West London Mission a measured drawing of the elevation of the Chapel to Great Queen Street with the adjacent buildings by R. Payne, Architect, June 21 (18)56, and an internal view in perspective drawn with ink and coloured, probably executed by the same hand and about the same date. Both these drawings agree with the illustrations taken in 1906, and reproduced in Plates 32 and 33. The premises were demolished in 1910, and new buildings erected. The room over the portico was used at first as a day school room, but in 1860 the school was removed to new premises in the rear.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74281

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/search.aspx

Anyone know which Baguleys this this info matches? I tried to find them here with no success so far.

Bolton Hist. Gleanings, ii, 325. In his will, William Hulme the son mentioned Richard Baguley his brother, Christopher and Alexander Baguley his uncles, and William Baguley his cousin; Notitia Cestr. (Chet. Soc), ii, 72.
Alexander Baguley and Katherine his wife are mentioned in 1655; she may have been the widow of Richard Banastre; Pal. of Lanc. Feet of F. bdle. 157, m. 50. William Baguley of Kearsley in 1698 leased an acre in Breightmet to William Hilton of the latter township; Hulme D. no. 115.
William Baguley by his will dated 1725 left £200 towards founding and endowing a charity school in Breightmet, which was afterwards built on the site of an ancient messuage at Roscow Fold, granted by William Hulton; End. Char. Rep. for Bolton Boro. 1904, p. 23.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53042

At the battle of Northampton; Metcalfe, Bk. of Knights, 2.
Sir John Ashton in 1471 complained that Ambrose Baguley of Manchester had trespassed on his turbary at Ashton; Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 38, m. 2 d. He was knight of the shire in 1472; Pink and Beaven, op. cit. 57. In the following year he was returned as holding the manors of Ashton, Alt, and Moston (or, the other Moston) of the lord of Manchester, by the rent of 1d.; Mamecestre, iii, 483. 'Alt' may stand for altera.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41438

There is a lot more to look though in the link I previously gave. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/search.aspx

That link doesn't go to where I actually was......you have to put in the name Baguley and do a search.

Sir John's first wife was named Agnes; Norris D. (B.M.), n. 494, dated 1314. His second wife was Clemency, daughter and co-heir of Roger de Cheadle, and widow of William de Baguley; Earwaker, East Ches. i, 170; Staff. Hist. Coll. (Salt Soc.), xvi, 5, 6, from a Chest. Plea Roll of 1336; Geneal. (New Ser.), xiii, 102; xii, 111, 112, where is an error in the descent.
Richard son of Sir John de Molyneux and Isabel his wife were defendants in a plea of 1342; Assize R. 1435, m. 47 d. He was witness to a charter in 1341, and in the following year had a grant of lands from Roger son of Adam son of William de Crosby, his father (Sir John) being a witness; Blundell of Crosby D. K. 127, 259. Five years later he was plaintiff in a case of trespass; De Banc. R. 352, m. 311 d.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41297

Lanes. Inq. p.m. (Chet. Soc), ii, 40; he is stated to have held no lands.
Thomas de Hyde of Urmston and Margaret his wife granted to feoffees their manor of Urmston with the appurtenances; the date is uncertain; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 160.
In 1419 Thomas de Hyde of Urmston and Margaret his wife empowered John de Bamford to give seisin of all their lands, &c., in Stockport, Offerton, and Marple to George their son and Alice daughter of Robert de Stockport; Bratnhall D.
Arrangements were made in 1429 for the marriage of Thomas son of George de Hyde with Margaret daughter of Thomas de Leigh of Baguley. The marriage portion was 40 marks, the jointure 6 marks, and lands in Urmston to the clear value of 6 marks were set out for the purpose; Harl. MS. 2112, fol. 160.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52999

Linda, a clue may be found in who was allowed the patent for the Baguley coat of arms. I know there was a dispute early on, and have read conflicting stories of the results.

http://bigelowsociety.com/rod/baghist1.htm