Who are the parents of Thomas Hale?

Question

Was Thomas Hale (c. 1575-1630) the son of William and Rose (Bond) Hale?  If so, that seems to give him an up-to-now-unrecognized Magna Carta lineage through his mother.

If Thomas (who married in 1601) was the son of William, then he would have been one of William's eldest sons.  But William's third son Rowland inherited the estate, which seems to cast doubt on such a possibility.  The Hale genealogy mentions William, but gives no information or specuation about the parentage of Thomas -- see https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofdesce00hale#page/4/mode/2up

This lineage is confused by the fact that the Hale genealogy (on page 4) mistakenly states that Thomas's immigrant son Thomas (bapt. 1606) was the son of William.  But the transcript of the 1606 baptism record (shown after page 14) shows that the immigrant's father's name was "Thom," not William -- see https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofdesce00hale#page/n39/mode/2up

Answer 1

Thomas died in 1630. His father didn't die until 1634. Rowland WAS THE ONLY LIVING SON in 1634

Comments

The HALE/HAILE genealogy has been extensively and intensively studied for decades as this is the lineage of the Revolutionary War hero NATHAN HALE . American patriots are very proud of their heroes.

---

London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 about Thomas Hale

Name: Thomas Hale Baptism Date: 7 Dec 1572 Parish: St James Garlickhithe County: London Borough: City of London Parent(s): William Record Type: Christening Register Type: Parish Register

View original image

Source Citation: London Metropolitan Archives, St James Garlickhithe, Composite register: baptisms and burials 1535 - 1693, marriages 1535 - 1692, P69/JS2/A/002/MS09140.

Source Information:

Ancestry.com. London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Church of England Parish Registers, 1538-1812. London, England:

---

So there was a Thomas Hale, son of William, who was baptized in London in 1572.  Is there any reason to associate this London baptism with the Hale family of Watton-at-Stone, Hertfordshire?

If this father William was the same as William Hale (d. 1634) of Watton-at-Stone, then this particular Thomas appears to have died childless before his father's death.  That is to say, he was a different man from the Thomas Hale who died in 1630 in Watton-at-Stone.

The reason for this is very simple -- William's third son Rowland inherited William's estate, which means -- per the law of primogeniture -- that Rowland's two elder brothers died early, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY SONS.  Of course this is not conclusive; we could speculate about William's elder son Thomas being disinherited for some reason.  Is there any evidence for that?

Answer 2

Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, Volume 1

says Rowland was the first-born son of William and Rose

Comments

check better sources like Burke's for the birthdate of Thomas. the one on his profile means his father would have been 8 yrs old when he was born. too many merges before the info was verified.  William had 5 son according to Burke's. someone is missing.

---

Burke's states that Rowland Hale son and heir of William, was born in 1600.  This means that Rowland was the eldest surviving son (and any older sons died without having sons).

This means that Thomas Hale (d. 1634), who married in 1601, couldn't have been the son of William because he was far too old -- probably born in the 1570s, at least 20 years older than Rowland. 

The link to Burke's is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNEKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA562&lpg=PA562&dq=burke%27s+landed+gentry+william+hale&source=bl&ots=6s4cnasPjB&sig=ra0VhutndWRMHOnF8GfXqSvm6_o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PKNVVOiVCsr-yQS5-IGABg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=burke%27s%20landed%20gentry%20william%20hale&f=false

 

 

 

Answer 3

Thomas, his younger brother John mentioned in his will and his father and mother

England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975

Name:	Thomas Hale
Gender:	Male
Baptism Date:	22 Aug 1574
Baptism Place:	Saint John The Baptist,Croydon,Surrey,England
FHL Film Number:	994330
Household Members:	Name Thomas Hale Thomas Hale

Source Information:
Ancestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
Original Data: England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. Salt Lake City, Utah: FamilySearch, 2013.

 

Surrey, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812

Name:	John Hale
Event Type:	Baptism
Baptism Date:	18 Oct 1576
Parish:	Croydon, St John
Father's Name:	Thomas Hale
Mother's Name:	Agnes
Reference Number:	2888/1/1

Source Information:

Ancestry.com. Surrey, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2013.
Original Data: Anglican Parish Registers. Woking, Surrey, England: Surrey History Centre.

 

Comments

Yes indeed, this fits the John Hale who witnessed Thomas's will.  Of course better proof is needed, but this is the most logical possibility I've seen for the origin of Thomas.

---

Search for JOHN HALE born probably May 1575, with a brother Thomas, likely twins.

Answer 4

L.f.49
Ordinances for the manor of King's Walden, 1625 April 6

View of frankpledge of King's Walden bearing the same date lists William and Thomas Hale as lords of the manor (see Folger MS L.f.75).

Watermark: Small pot, crescent on trefoil. I/POO or L/POO.

-------

L.f.75
View of frankpledge of King's Walden., 1625 April 6

Lists William and Thomas Hale as lords of the manor, as well as the homagers and two headboroughs.

Watermark: Small pot, crescent on cinquefoil over trefoil. CQ.

 

Father and son Lords of the manor of Kings Waldon. Both would have to be of Majority to be listed as such

http://findingaids.folger.edu/dfowilliams.xml#ref241

 

Comments

This record seems to show that William had a son Thomas who was born by 1604 at the latest (age 21+ in 1625).  We can infer that (1) this son Thomas was older than his brother Rowland (b. 1600) and (2) this son Thomas had no sons, because Rowland eventually inherited the manor.  This evidence indicates that Thomas, son of William, is different from the older Thomas Hale-459 (c. 1575 - 1634), who had a son Thomas who emigrated to America.

Once again, we can speculate that William had a son Thomas born about 1575 (over 20 years older than brother Rowland -- perhaps by a first wife?), and that this son Thomas had a son Thomas born in 1606 (the eventual emigrant to Newbury, Massachusetts), and that Thomas was co-lord of the manor with his father William in 1625, and that he was disinherited for some reason before his death in 1630.  But this is just idle speculation.

One potentially useful point is to establish the approximate birth year of William Hale and wife Rose Bond.  If they really were the parents of Thomas, then they would have to have been born by around 1555 at the latest.

---

Thomas was from a prior Marriage, the records i Purchaced 6 in total

Burkes Landed Gentry states William Hale and Rose Bond married 1587. the Marriage Licence in my possetion was issued February 23, 1595

 

William has married a Peers daughter, for that he would have entered into a contract, it could and would have required William to pay a suritey/bond plus he would have to issue land in her own right, plus Sir George may have made a condition that the children of Rose be sole Heirs. any Prior children William would have settled Land upon them. we know that Thomas Hale-459 held land in his own right and the Hales held the Manor of Kings Waldon

---

Eric, your quest to find the truth through research is truly applaudable!

The fact that some will always prefer to see a half-full glass as closer

to empty than full is disappointing.  

From someone's profile biography I can quote, "  I've been sniffing out bogus medieval pedigrees ever since."

I hope this type of negativity never becomes a priority for me as I prefer to be optimistic!  I hope you will not be stymied by those whom are negative.

---

Eric, your speculative reconstruction of the Hale family is worth testing, as long as it is clearly identified as speculation.  So let's test it...

First of all, you appear to be assuming that William's son Thomas (alive and adult in 1625, no further record) is the same as Thomas Hale-459.  The available evidence (Thomas Hale-459 was older than William's heir Rowland) appears to conclusively disprove such an assumption.

It appears that, if we set aside the speculation that William's son Thomas was the same as Thomas Hale-459, there is no evidence that William's son Thomas was the son of an earlier wife, or that William had an earlier wife.  (If you have any information about an earlier wife, I would be pleased to be informed.)

The biggest problem with your hypothesis is the speculation that George Bond made a marriage condition that the children of Rose be sole heirs.  Such a condition would be impossible, because of the law of primogeniture.  William inherited Kings Walden as his father's eldest son, and by law was required to pass it on to his eldest son, or (if that son died before him) the eldest son of his eldest son.  He couldn't disinherit his eldest son simply because of the demand of a lordly father-in-law.  This, by itself, seems to prove that Thomas Hale-459 could not be the son of William.

And furthermore, as you already demonstrated, in 1625 William's son Thomas was lord of the manor of King's Walden together with William, which means that Thomas was William's heir, which means that there was no deal to pass over Thomas in favor of a son by a second wife, which brings us back to our two earlier possibilities: (1) William's son Thomas died (without having any sons) before William died, or (2) William disinherited his son Thomas.

---

John,  I am curious if you are familiar with the multitude of exceptions to primogeniture as found in: 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=r480AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=primogeniture+exceptions&source=bl&ots=_UNKtrWfrE&sig=mzjqSFOgrUrBEXzzcvPPchz4WdM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hsZWVOChLNW1oQSs2IHoAQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=primogeniture%20exceptions&f=false

 

Thank-you for your contributions and let's encourage research without being quick to be judgemental.  It is likely you will find several public bulletin board comments I've made on profiles where I believe my research is more probable than what is currently displayed; but, I respect collaboration and only make suggestions.

 

---

David, that article you linked doesn't talk about or give examples of exceptions to primogeniture.  It is an opinion piece from the 19th century, which doesn't seem relevant to the 16th century Hale family.

For medieval genealogists, the law of primogeniture is simply part of the environment.  It is part of the genealogist's tool-chest and it is commonly used to make deductions about family relationships.  I hope you will agree that it is also relevant in this case of the 16th-century Hale family.

Here is a summary of primogeniture:

"Primogeniture developed elaborate rules for identifying the heir-at-law in the absence of children. If there were children, the heir-at-law was the eldest son (or, if dead, his heir-at-law). In the absence of a son, the daughters jointly inherited as heirs-at-law. After 1540, the testator (maker of the will) could bequeath land, but lands not mentioned in the will were treated as intestate and went to the heir-at-law. The major exception was entailed lands, meaning lands bequeathed by an ancestor to a person and that person’s lineal descendants. The legal entailing phrase was “to X and the heirs of his or her body lawfully begotten.” (The phrase “to his heirs and assigns forever” is not an entail.) Such land entailed to X could not be bequeathed by will so long as it remained entailed, because entailed lands went to the heir-at-law. Widows had a right to a life interest in one-third of their husband’s lands, to be surrendered if they remarried. An excellent case study is Margaret Hickerson Emery’s “The Adeustone-Rogers Families of Virginia: Tracing a Colonial Lineage through Entailment and Naming Patterns,” in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.87"

Quoted from http://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=English_Law_in_American_Land_Research

---

The "Opinion Piece" you refer to was written by: The Honourable George Charles Brodrick (5 May 1831 – 8 November 1903)  an Oxford historian and author who became Warden of Merton College, Oxford.

If I were to follow your logic without exception, how would we evaluate the period in which King Henry VIII of England seized all Roman Catholic property in the continuance of England to undermine the papacy in the 16th century?

Your limited quote from the work of Sandra Hargreaves also starts with a disclaimer..."With some exceptions" further down "Not only did copyhold fail to flourish in the colonies, the idea that the Crown “really” owned all the land also failed. Therefore, American law was centuries ahead of English law in developing the legal sense of fee simple as an absolute (allodial) ownership." and "Whether Americans performed all these steps is conjectural."  Do you believe that her material adds to the understanding of the Hale profile that started this discussion?

I have no doubt you are stern in your beliefs; but, the evidence presented by Eric appears to be very well researched!

To further the focus of Magna Carta, I am sure you are well aware of the number of volumes of relationships Wurts sold prior to his works being exposed as being fabricated in majority.  The study of genealogy IMHO is ever evolving.  

A simple way to look at the question of "Are you related to Charlemagne" is purely mathematical.  Probability is highly in favor that you are and we have not yet discovered all of the missing pieces in the lineage!

---

David, much of your commentary is straying from the topic at hand.  Back on topic... The key phrase from that quote on primogeniture is

"If there were children, the heir-at-law was the eldest son (or, if dead, his heir-at-law)." 

Applying this to William Hale and family, if Thomas Hale-459 was the eldest son of William, then William's heir would have been Thomas's son Thomas Hale-452 the immigrant. 

It's really that simple.  The fact that Thomas Hale-452 did NOT inherit King's Walden is very strong evidence that his father, Thomas Hale-459, was not the son of William.

In light of this, is there any evidence that Thomas Hale-459 WAS the son of William?  Several months ago I detached William as the father of Thomas.  Very recently somebody else came along and added William back, and that is the reason for this G2G discussion.

David, do you think that Thomas Hale-459 was the son of William?  If so, what evidence supports your conclusion?

---

---

---

Answer 5

the profiles listed say William born 1568 //Thomas born 1575//William would be 9 yrs old when he fathered Thomas!!!!!!

Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

---

"The father was 9 years old when he fathered an 8-year old girl in 1910 in China. It has been a common practice in China to have children ages 10 and above to be married despite of the overpopulation issue in the country."

http://www.tiptoptens.com/2014/06/02/top-10-youngest-fathers-in-the-world/ 

---

Please read the First sentence

http://elizabethan.org/compendium/41.html

Answer 6

I'm going to try to summarize the relevant facts concerning the disputed parents of Thomas Hale-549.  If anybody thinks the following is incomplete or inaccurate, could you please say so?

1.  William Hale had a son Thomas who was William's heir and co-lord of King's Walton in 1625.  Nothing more is known of this son Thomas, but the fact that his brother Rowland inherited William's estate in 1634 indicates (because of the law of primogeniture) that Thomas died before then, without sons.

2.  Thomas Hale-549, father of the immigrant Thomas Hale-542, married in 1601, which means he was probably born some time in the 1570s.

3.  Perhaps Thomas Hale-549 was the Thomas Hale baptized in 1574 in Croydon, Surrey, son of Thomas.  This Thomas had a younger brother John, and there was a John Hale who witnessed the 1630 will of Thomas Hale-549.

Comments

William father of Thomas had a brother John. Both a William and a Thomas were the Lords of the Manor of Kings Waldon. Even if Thomas was alive when William's will was made he was not forced by any law to leave anything other than a token to a son called Thomas especially if Thomas had recieved anything prior, the fact Thomas died before William makes it redundant that he would recieve any recognition at all in Williams will

---

If nobody objects, I am going to go ahead and remove William and Rose (Bond) Hale as the parents of Thomas.

Here is proof that Thomas-459 could NOT have been the son of William:

According to the gravestone of William Hale (recorded in Sir Henry Chauncy's The Antiquities of Heretfordshire, p. 412), William died in 1634 in his 66th year, which means he was born about 1568.  According to the same source, his wife Rose died in 1648 in her 74th year, which means she was born about 1572.  See http://books.google.com/books?id=FOlBAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA412&lpg=PA412&dq=upon+his+death,+this+manner+came+to+william,+who+served+twice+in+parliament+for+this+county&source=bl&ots=4-y5dXBc5H&sig=HYck48ngLQt5zqrMj-UBh8i95-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vg1cVMDbMYn0igK62ICIAQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=upon%20his%20death%2C%20this%20manner%20came%20to%20william%2C%20who%20served%20twice%20in%20parliament%20for%20this%20county&f=false

Thomas Hale-459 married in 1601, which means he was probably born in the 1570s at the latest, so he could not have possibly been the son of William.

Answer 7

Incidentally, descendants of Rose Bond don't just have a Magna Carta ancestor, they have a world-famous cousin.  The motto of this Bond family: Orbis non sufficit - The World Is Not Enough.