Jane Hermins (Locke) - RE: Jane (Hermins) [Locke] Drake her maiden name is unknown no Hermins

I would also like to add Christopher Locke of East Brent, Somerset had children with an unknown wife. The baptism of four children are found in the parish records of East Brent, Somerset. There is no daughter named Jane mentioned in the pedigree and there is no wife named.

So the wife and the child Jane should be removed.

Admins of this profile please review these two sources:

William Robinson, The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Tottenham, (G.S. Coventry: Tottenham, 1818), 52, digital images, Google Books (https://books.google.com : accessed 10 January 2016).

"Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl Dorset," The Peerage, database, (www.thepeerage.com/p.3025.htm#i30247 : accessed 10 January 2016).

Summary from Jannie:

"Ann Sackville, daughter of Thomas Sackville, Ist Earl of Dorset married Sir Henry Glenham. Sir Thomas had only one wife, the mother of his children, she was Cecily Baker. Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset, son of Thomas and Cecily Sackville, married firstly Margaret Howard, daughter of Thomas Howard,the 4th Duke of Norfork. The second wife of Robert Sackville was Ann Spencer, the daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp. She had been married to William Stanley, 3rd Baron Monteagle and secondly Henry Compton, 1st Baron of Compton. Her third husband was Robert Sackville. They married in 1592. Apparently she was not the best of wives as Robert Sackville was trying to separate from her when he died in 1609. Ann Spencer Stanley Compton Sackville died on 22 September 1618. She is not buried in Westminster Abbey. She did not marry a farmer named Christoper Locke who lived out in the boonies of Somerset. She is not the mother of Jane Locke"

Mike I cited many of my sources in my original message. If you would like to post a URL to the tree to which you are referring I would be happy to review it. But it had better have source citations regarding the points I am objecting to if you want to use it as a source.

Let's please limit the discussion to my objections. I did not bring up John Locke and his profile is not part of this discussion. I have not objected to the profile of John Locke in any way.

Here are my objections which I thought I stated clearly but I offer my apologies if I did not.

1) There is no evidence that William Berry’s wife, Jane (maiden name unknown) had a last name of Hermins. Furthermore there is no evidence that Jane (maiden name unknown) was the daughter of a Thaddeus Hermins and a Jane (Locke) Hermins:

Jane Drake

Note – I sent this exact objection to the profile managers this morning and her maiden name, Hermes, has now been removed and her parents have been disconnected. But her maiden name was listed as Hermins and her parents were listed as Thaddeus Hermins and a Jane (Locke) Hermins. This is now fixed.

2) There is no evidence that Jane (Locke) Hermins had a daughter named Jane Hermins who married William Berry (see #1 above). There is also no evidence that Jane (Locke) Hermins had a mother named Ann Sackville or a father named Christopher Locke:

Jane Hermins

3) There is no evidence that Ann Sackville married Christopher Locke. And there is no evidence that Ann Sackville or Christopher Locke has a daughter named Jane (Locke) Hermins:

Anne Locke
Christopher Locke, of Pensford

My goal is to completely dismantle this royal lineage from my ancestors William Berry and Jane (maiden name unknown) Berry.

Christopher Locke of East Brent, Somerset had children with an unknown wife. The baptism of four children are found in the parish records of East Brent, Somerset. There is no daughter named Jane mentioned in the pedigree and there is no wife named.

Please review these sources regarding the Sackville family:

William Robinson, The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Tottenham, (G.S. Coventry: Tottenham, 1818), 52, digital images, Google Books (https://books.google.com : accessed 10 January 2016).

"Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl Dorset," The Peerage, database, (www.thepeerage.com/p.3025.htm#i30247 : accessed 10 January 2016).

I would be happy to review any evidence to the contrary on these points.

RE Ann Sackville

Anne Locke

One link above was broken. Here is the fixed link showing Ann Sackville dau of Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset married married Sir Henry Glemham, son of Sir Thomas Glemham and Amy Parker.

http://www.thepeerage.com/p1442.htm#i14416

http://www.thepeerage.com/p11823.htm#i118229

She is a duplicate of this profile:

Anne Glemham

No problem for me removing Anne Locke & Christopher Locke, of Pensford as parents of Jane Hermins but if Thaddeus John Hermins was married to a Jane ? then why not edit Jane's profile to Jane (Unknown) instead of cutting all connections leaving her a drift. Or is what is on Thaddeus's About section not correct?

Anne Locke does not seem like she would be the dau. of Anne (Spencer) and Thomas Sackville since Anne Sackville seems to be connected to an additional wrong husband here also. According to the references she was married to William Stanley, Henry Compton & Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset not Thomas Sackville, KG, PC, 1st Earl of Dorset Robert Sackville is listed as the son of Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset and Cicely Sackville (Baker) 1st Countess of Dorset

Would Anne (Spencer) have had a child Anne Sackville and then married her step-son Robert Sackville in 1592? I doubt it.

Anne Locke would not be the dau. Margaret Sackville & Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset either their dau. was Anne Lewis, Lady Beauchamp wife of Edward Beauchamp Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp and Sir Edward Lewis

Thanks Carole!

You are spot on about Anne (Spencer) Stanley-Compton-Sackville:
Anne Sackville

Jeanie Roberts and I were discussing this yesterday when we saw on GENI that Anne (Spencer) Stanley-Compton-Sackville was married to Thomas Sackville (1st Earl of Dorest):

Thomas Sackville, KG, PC, 1st Earl of Dorset

Ann certainly did not marry her step-son. Thomas Sackville (1st Earl of Dorest) only had one wife Cecily Baker:

http://www.thepeerage.com/p1442.htm#i14416

So Thomas Sackville (1st Earl of Dorest) and Anne (Spencer) Stanley-Compton-Sackville need to be disconnected.

Thomas Sackville (1st Earl of Dorest) and his only known wife Cecily Baker did have a daughter Ann Sackville but she married Sir Henry Glemham:

Anne Glemham

http://www.thepeerage.com/p11823.htm#i118229

So who was the wife of Christopher Locke? The parish records only show the births of four children to him and the name of his wife is not given. I can find no marriage record for him Either. So his wife as far as I can tell is "unknown." We don't even know that her first name was Ann.

The only evidence of his wife come from two *unsourced* trees:

The Brondell Locke Genealogy:

http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/l/o/c/Brondell-Locke-CA/WEBSITE-0001/U...

LDS:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/MW88-DL1?view=basic

No sources are posted for either of these trees. To me it looks like someone woke up one day and say - well let's slip a Ann Sackville in there and we'll have some royal heritage! I don't know that but they certainly didn't cite any sources and these tree don't match any of the records regarding Thomas Sackville and as you said it would make no sense for him to have married Ann Spencer in any case. I think its hogwash.

So I think we need to:

1) Disconnect Thomas Sackville from Ann Spencer

2) Remove Ann Sackville (daughter of Thomas Sackville) as a spouse of Christompher Locke. Then merge Ann Sackville with the other Ann Sackville and change her mother to Cecily Baker. Alternately we could just remove both parents of Ann Sackville and change her name to "unknown" and keep her as a spouse of Christopher Locke. Christopher Locke did have a wife - we just don't know who she was.

I can find no evidence for the existence of the man named Thaddeus John Hermins:

Thaddeus John Hermins

My guess is that someone saw the child named Thaddeus Berry and figured - well that's an unusual name so the granddad must be named Thaddeus too! And I can't find any marriage record for a Thaddeus Hermins either in the US or in England. No probate record. No land deeds. That's why I didn't leave him with a wife - I don't think he existed at all.

However, I should not leave Jane Hermins floating in space. We should be able to re-purpose her. Let me look at this and see if there is a way I can fit her in to the Locke, Hermins, Foss, Berry complete :)

Sorry for the typos above!

And one more change we need is to remove William Conney as a spouse of Jane Drake (unknown). We know she only married William Berry and Nathaniel Drake:

Jane Drake

William Conney

Possibly we could just merge him into William Berry?

I have removed Anne Sackville as the dau. of Anne (Spencer) & Thomas Sackville, also changed her name Anne Locke

Possibly the other wives could be merged with her, if no references can be found which state the name name of Christopher's wife. Christopher Locke, of Pensford seems to have gained another wife Anne Locke as of January 11, 2015 , no information listed on the profile.

I have removed the husband/wife relationship for Thomas Sackville, KG, PC, 1st Earl of Dorset & Anne Sackville

I would just leave William Conney alone, at one time he was connected to a son Joseph Conney but the User that entered them removed the connection.

Very nice work Roland & Carole. This ties in with our earlier work on the English Locke family.

Here's Jeanie Roberts blog for reference

http://www.jeaniesgenealogy.com/2016/01/english-ancestry-of-william...

Oh - that looks so much better Carole! Thank you! Fantastic!

I hope you don't mind but I just made an executive decision and merged the three wives of Christopher Locke of Pensford into one Unknown wife. Mike added Chatherine Seymour as a wife and I think he did that in error because he claims to be following this genealogy (unsourced) which show Catherine Seymour as his mother not his wife:

http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/l/o/c/Brondell-Locke-CA/WEBSITE-0001/U...

I took the left over floating profile that used to be the imaginary "Jane Hermins (Locke):"

Jane Hermins

And just turn her into an "unknown mother" for Jane (unknown) Drake:

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000007708266601

And added an unknown father.

I hope that's OK. It cleans up the loose ends and nobody gets hurt :)

Well this is fun! Slash and burn genealogy!

Thanks so much!

I have provided a private post to Roland but also add that the meager research I saw was puzzling. Ancestry states that the wife of Christopher Locke (Catherine Seymore) is the daughter of Queen Parr Seymour and Henry while Geni stated that Catherine Seymore was the daughter of Edward Somerset and Stanhope. Our researched tree substantiates Geni in this instance. Knowing that often there are many people with the same name I do not add much credence to this as a general source resource but it is worthy of further inquiry-Roland seems to be the best person for this. My question as to the activity that took place this past week is - what Christopher are you referring to- it seems that, in actuality you are speaking of Lewis Christopher Locke rather than Christopher Locke (Lockie). Further, I have an additional Christopher Sr. (grandson of Lockie) who follows forward in my tree- so, which are you referring to as this Ann Sackville controversy is not finished until I see the basis for the insertion of her name into the tree that is of our own line. I need to ascertain from hence this entry originated and on what basis-possibly, there is more information that is not being used in this discussion.

Upon further examination, my suspicions are confirmed. When tampering with family lines caution and restraint are necessary.
Point-I am not incorrect- Catherine is both the mother-in-law in my line (Catherine (Parr) Seymour)- ((I know, I was truly shocked also)) but Christopher Matthew Locke's wife is also Catherine-daughter of various reports (Queen Parr Seymour and Thomas Somerset OR Queen Parr Seymour and Edward Somerset OR Edward Somerset and Anne Stanhope. This shows the actual confusion that is rampant.
Our line and research associates Catherine (the wife) as the daughter of Edward and Anne Stanhope although, as I have indicated, there is ongoing confusion about this person (Catherine Seymour- the wife).
Adding to this, Roland's ill advised comment about "slash and burn genealogy" I find misguided in reference to the quick draw approach to adding and subtracting ancestors. Here is why-
A quick (and not lengthy) research indicated numerous Ann Sackville personalities (one of which IS/or WAS married to Christopher Locke and has a b. 1570 and d. 1625- both in Middlesex, London, England.
Further, he references Ann Sackville (Spenser)- these are not the same persons- the Spenser has the demographics of b. 1555 d. 1618. Obviously, on date alone- these are different. Finally, further research concludes that another Lady Anne Sackville was also present at that time in Dorsetshire, England which is listed as her place of birth in 1533 with d. 1595 in Chelsea, England.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that it is more prudent to make sure before jumping and twisting one's pedigree due to the latest and greatest tidbit of information. Caution and patience seems to be better indicator of the consideration as it seems accurate to state. I state this Kindly (!) and with appreciation for your efforts thus far Roland.

Dr. Michael Alan Gray
If you have some references to the relationship of Christopher Locke and a wife Anne Sackville please post them to this discussion or in the About sections of Christopher Locke, of Pensford & Anne Locke

I also had searched for a reference for this relationship and was able to find none except for personal trees. The searches that brought up Ancestry.com I would not use, if they have a record then I would use the reference but not the personal trees, sure some of the relationships would be correct, but which ones, without other references it would be like guessing. The Milliennium File I would not consider a reference, I have a Ancestry Account and have found the Milliennium File to have many errors, the same goes for Web: Netherlands.

Dr. Michael Alan Gray

In response to the note you sent me and the post above I offer the following for your consideration.

These three works are generally acknowledged as the most up-to-date references for researching royal lineages of colonial families:

1. Richardson, Douglas. “Royal Ancestry.” (5 vols., 2013)
2. Richardson, Douglas. “Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families.” (4 vols., 2011)(Order accepts 1st edition, too)
3. Richardson, Douglas. “Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families.” (3 vols., 2011)(Order accepts 1st edition, too)

They can be purchased directly from the author or on Amazon.
Richardson, Douglas
http://www.royalancestry.net/publications.html

Richardson stands up to the rigorous standards of modern genealogy. Unfortunately many earlier works have been proven to be erroneous.

After Richardson these references are also well regarded:

4. Roberts, Gary Boyd. “The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States.” (2008 edition)
5. “Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before 1700.” (8th edition)
6. Cokayne, G.E. “Complete Peerage.” (2nd edition)
7. Barnes, Robert W. “British Roots of Maryland Families.” GPC 1999
8. “Mayflower Families through Five Generations.” (23 vols.)
9. Dorman, John Frederick. “Adventures of Purse and Person.” (3 vols., 4th edition)
10. The American Genealogist.
11. The New England Historical and Genealogical Register.
12. New York Genealogical & Biographical Record.
13. Genealogies of Virginia Families from the William and Mary College Quarterly.
14. “The Magna Charta Sureties.” (5th edition)
15. Turton, Lt. Col. W. H., DSO. “The Plantagenet Ancestry.”

Roberts – while current doesn’t always back up his work with sources and some errors have been called out by TAG. So check Richardson first.

The American Genealogist (TAG) is one of the best journals for cutting edge rigorous research on the topic of royal lineages of early American families. Back issues can be purchased for $12 and a 3-year subscription is only $100. This journal is peer reviewed by many of the same genealogists who review The New England Historical and Genealogical Register.

This was the Christopher Locke c 1568 - 1635 in question:

Christopher Locke, of Pensford

Initially Christopher Locke’s profile was shown married to Ann Sackville the daughter of Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset. But that Ann Sackville married to Sir Henry Glemham and not Christopher Locke. Therefore she was removed as Christopher Locke’s wife.

The other Ann Sackville you are now referring to in your post above who died in Chelsea, England in 1595 was the daughter of Richard Sackville. She is known also as “Baroness Dacre” and she married Gregory Fiennes, son of Thomas Fiennes, 9th Baron Dacre (executed in 1541).

She had only one daughter named Elizabeth who died young and has no living descendants. Her husband died in 1594 and she died only a few months later and was charged by the court for trying to appropriate his estate to herself. She is buried next to her husband. Her epitaph describes her in laudatory terms as:

Fœminei lux clara chori, pia, casta, pudica;
Ægris subsidium, pauperibusque decus;
Fida Deo, perchara tuis, constansque, diserta;
Sic patiens morbi, sic pietatis amans.

A photo of her marble monument is here:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=36730665

She left a will. Seeing as she had no heirs she made provisions for the erection of Emanuel Hospital and left the rest to Lord Burghley.