The Waring family are not connected to the Warren family.

Question

It is simply amazing when the Waring family of the USA try very hard to force themselves into the  ancient Warren family by attempting to insinuate that the Warren occasional spelling errors made by churchmen ie;Warren, Waren, Woren, Warrin, Warin and Woron, equate with that of the Waring family. DNA has already shown the Warings to be of a different DNA type and yet this silly family tree trying to insert itself into the Christopher Warren/Alice Webb line is ludicrous and confusing to those looking for their true roots. Please look to your own families rather than try to destroy the lines of others in your mad attempts to have royal lineage.

Regards

Raymond J Warren, Great great Gandson of Nathaniel Warren of Winchester Hampshire, son of Christopher Warren b 1768, son of Martin Warren b 1633, son of Christopher Warren b 1698, son of John Warren b 1658, son of John Warren b 1617, son of Christopher Warren b 1585 married Alice Webb in 1613, son of William Warren b c1530, son of Christopher Warren b c1504 at Asghburton in Devon.

Comments

Raymond, if there are specific profiles here on wikitree that need to be examined and corrected, please list them so those interested in this line can get to work. Thanks.

---

I took a look; it looks like the controversy is about the parentage of immigrant Richard Waring who came over in the 1650s (pushing him out of the PGM time frame) but settled on Long Island?

Raymond, what do you feel are the best sources for examining this controversy?

---

Raymond, please point us to good sources where we can find the information needed to make the changes you're implying.

I.e., who has published an analysis of the descendants of Christopher that would exclude Richard Waring of Long Island? Or of the origins of this same Richard?

Where is the DNA disconnect discussed or described?

There are clearly people here who want to clean up this mess, myself included, but we need your help finding strong sources.

I've dug into the NEHGS databases and the NYGBR archive of issues. Other than the Jacobus article mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I haven't yet found anything that discusses this problem in any depth.

---

Your suggestion that "the Waring family of the USA try very hard to force themselves into the  ancient Warren family" is unfounded. Many Warren family members got their information from the work of William Wallace "Wally" Warren, who wrote the book "An American Family called Warren." He, along with his cousin Glendon Warren, were dedicated researchers for more than 25 years, starting back in the 1960s and into the 1990s when there was no Internet. They tirelessly collected documents to verify their research, taking their own line back to Richard Waring (1619-1673) and his wife Elizabeth Ivatt. Research on Wally's part led him to believe that Richard Waring was the son of Christopher Warren. He believed that he got that information from a credible resource. Obviously his sources were wrong. Both men have now passed away. I have some of their research on my website at www.TheHeritageLady. I state on my webpage that Wally's research was incorrect when he stated that Christopher Warren and Alice Webb were the parents of Richard Waring. Many, many people have contacted me after seeing my website and they have the surname of Warren (like my grandmother), Wearen, Waring, and Waren. Colonial records were not so exact, thus resulting is MANY different spellings of the name. I myself never even knew that Christopher Warren descended from any kings, so that certainly wasn't my desire. And so your statement: "Please look to your own families rather than try to destroy the lines of others in your mad attempts to have royal lineage." concludes that we Warrens are trying to destroy other lines. That could not be further from the truth. I've tried to contact owners of incorrect trees on Ancestry.com to inform them of the true facts; however, most don't even respond to me or reply by saying that they will not change their tree. I've done my part. We can only hope that other serious researchers will do theirs. In the meantime, it does no good to paint all American Waring/Warren family researchers with such a broad brush. I too am an author and 30+ year historian and researcher. 

Elaine Hatfield Powell, www.TheHeritageLady.com 

---

Thanks for writing, Elaine.

Based on your research, is the following profile accurate? If not, what do we need to change?

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Waring-228

Thanks.

---

Thank you for the chuckle today as I surf the Internet for my surname.  Some of you (Raymond) are taking this waaaay too seriously! Weren't English royalty a bunch of inbred bastards anyway?  I'll stick with the peasants.

Answer 1

Hello Raymond , I took a look at the descendant list coming down from Christopher. There are many UN sourced profile , both with the names Warren and Waring. Many are orphans. I don't think it is " a mad attempt " to destroy the lines of others. Also many people don't know the Warrens come down from royal lineage when they start out. I think this was just a simple lack of knowledge. All of the profiles I looked at could use the knowledgeable help of someone familiar with the Warrens to to straighten them out , and do some merges and see if the Warings mixed in could actually be Warrens. Thank You for pointing out what is happening in this part of the tree.

Comments

Hi, Ray

I've just put my findings this afternoon below. I would love them to be 'real' ie the original registers and as I said, if it were my family that's what I would do but I am in a position to do that (live in France but have family in Dorset)

Re deaconate and priesthood, it's usually a year as deacon today but I have seen them happen on the same day in the past. MAs from Oxbridge don't in fact have to be earned.

 

It would be really interesting to see the full entry for William in the Dictionary of National Biography ; it should contain citations,

---

My Blog is sourced throughout with references to the Dorset Records office, the Marnhull OPC, Reverend Thomas Warren's work, The history of the Warren Family. I am sure he would be so thrilled that one so esteemed as Jillaine has greeted his work without asking him to source it although she does appear to critique it somewhat in saying it is "not bad for the era".

OMGlol

---

Ray, I'm surprised at your tone. You're not even a member here and a number of us are spending a great deal of time trying to address the concerns you've raised and correct the errors in the current Waring and Warren profiles here. I'd think you'd be thrilled that we're doing so with great attention to seeking strong, valid sources.

Late 19th and early 20th century published genealogies have a reputation for being devoid of source citations or even evidence that original sources were used. Rev. Thomas Warren's 1902 work is an exception. That's all I was saying.

---

I have tried to offer up assistance with your attempts tp sort out the Christopher Warren married Alice Webb situation, I have named all of the Children born of this couple and I have supplied their marriages and in some cases their Grandchildren. This information is sourced through Vivians Visitations and Thomas Warren's History of the Warren Family. It is also recorded in many other publication of old and has been proven through church records. This infatuation with  Richard Waring is maddening to one who has spent 30 years digging data out of the mire that still exists from thos who would be. Richard Warren was not Richard Waring, quite some years before [I think during the 1300's, a certain gentleman named Waring attempted to change his name to that of Warren. He was already of a goodly name but wanted to be of the Warren clan, he was disallowed but ever since, the Warings have kept trying. I believe if you ask Heraldry to see their arms you will note that they have quite a nice coat of arms already. In respect to the rest of the family, all of my family are well sourced from OPC's, Hutchins, Thomas Warren, Viviens Visitations. I am an acredited research historian and Author and have offered my own sight up for examination only to be told insultingly that it is not sourced because the Author of that statement did a scan of my site and found it not sourced inher scan when the site is sourced all the way through it with continuous mentions of where the information has come from. a goodly saying of old is "never look a gift horse in the mouth".

Cheers

RJW

---

My apologies if you felt slighted by my efforts and comments.

We clearly have very different approaches. But we are all after the same thing-- achieving accuracy. I believe we are headed in the right direction and will be detaching Richard Waring from Christopher Warren shortly.

---

You are correct, I am not even a member but I am of the human race and I am very tired of the way many sites are handling the mess that is being set in place by would be family tree researchers. Just Google your own site and check out the number of times that this particular subject is wrongfully st down on family trees. Why do these people not check proper sources for thei information? I am nt slighted by anything except having my 30 year work quick scnned and then being told that it has no sources?? It is sourced all the way through it and every record has come from Opc'c, Record offices or publications from the Visitations onward.

---

You are correct, I am not even a member but I am of the human race and I am very tired of the way many sites are handling the mess that is being set in place by would be family tree researchers. Just Google your own site and check out the number of times that this particular subject is wrongfully st down on family trees. Why do these people not check proper sources for thei information? I am nt slighted by anything except having my 30 year work quick scnned and then being told that it has no sources?? It is sourced all the way through it and every record has come from Opc'c, Record offices or publications from the Visitations onward.'REJW

---

Any user-contributed site, including wikitree, is going to suffer from the copy-paste trend that online "genealogy" has unfortunately made possible and popular. And any user-contributed site is going to include a mix of those who take research seriously and those who seek only to make as many connections as they can without any thought to accuracy.

There is a strong but probably too small for the task segment of wikitree -- represented only in part by those who have been replying here -- who seek to clean up the mess that results.

Most of the "copy/pasters" dump their gedcoms here then leave. We're grateful when errors are pointed out and help is provided to guide us in the right direction of more solid resources so that we can make the profiles more accurate.

---

Hi Ray,

Even though we have used primary sources, it's important to cite them. I too have spent hours at the records office in Dorchester . My husband ancestors  were in Marnhull ((Hatchers) Others (Fords) come from Shillingstone and Ockford Fitzpaine  and the Tarrants  ie not far away. I thought that I had sourced them OK on my home genealogy software. Since  joining wikitree I've realised that I often need to go back and check so that others can see my thinking.  (Dorset OPC and Ancestry which contains many original records helps there even though I'm in France.Luckilly I have photocopies of wills and land records)

And I've  also found since I've been here that there is a lot that is obviously wrong and what seems  to me an incomprehensible wish to be linked with the first settlers in America (Thissometimes  makes me annoyed since I have several people who I know went out there later but there are no existing links on the tree to them)

So since I've been here, I've tried my best to find good sources and to help people who are trying to improve the overall tree because I believe in the philosophy behind it. (still too new to actually dive in) The result is probably that my own contributions from my family research will take another couple of years to enter. I  have learned though that I'm not always right.  I was  grateful to receive an email from a person who had a birth certificate that showed an assumption of parentage I had made was wrong and that's the beauty of collaboration; sometimes we become blind to the assumptions we have made but others can see it. I've also been spending time rereading some of the older wills in my family,just to try to make sure I haven't jumped to unsupported conclusions.(and unfortunately there will also be some links that are at the moment tenuous)

 You've done a lot of research on your family therefore wouldn't it be  a good idea if you joined  in and and then helped to improve the profiles which you have researched.

---

Yes you are correct, I must remember that I am trying to offer support to people who are new at the game. To begin to answewr your question, I have been an Historian,Author and family researcher for 40 years now and have opened up many doors to many people in regard to their family trees. I have even offered my Blog Site as a starting point for many of you who are trying to ascertain the rights and [mostly] wrongs of American Genealogy. Too many sites like yours are running on that slow working gas called assumption and it can be seen in just about every website that tries to connect itself to Christopher and Alice Webb Warren of Ilsington in Devon. My blog ONLY contains records that have been proven in every way as being correct in every detail. The Blogrelates it's sources all the way through and my acreditations on work already done [See Wildflower The Barbara Crawford Thompson Story, The Warren Register of Colonial Tall Ships [online]. I offered my site up gratis only to be told that "it has no sources" by a woman of your site who stated that she had scanned it for sources in the one minute she was away?? I do not take kindly to ignorance and disrespect and am quick to away from such stupidity.

Answer 2

Hello Raymond,

You note: "DNA has already shown the Warings to be of a different DNA type ....."  

Can you get permission from some of those Y-DNA test takers to add their YSearch ID and direct paternal line ancestry to WikiTree?

Thanks and sincerely, Peter

Comments

A puzzle.  A bunch of Somersets were tested for the Richard III job because the Somersets claim to be the only surviving male-line descendants of the Plantagenet kings.

But the Plantagenets' DNA wasn't unique.  Henry II had a well-known bastard paternal half-brother, Hamelin, who married the Warenne heiress.  Their descendants continued the Warenne name, and so any number of Warrens (including the OP) should have the same Y chromosome as Richard III.  Why hasn't anybody looked?

Answer 3

Actually I think a lot of the screwing up of the Warren family can be blamed on an earlier theory that Christopher and Alice's son Richard was the Richard Warren of the Mayflower.

This was debunked a long time ago, as if it needed to be, and yet it was trotted out again in quite a recent book.

Comments

RJ, do you know the name of this book?

And... i thought it was Edward Fuller who was the Mayflower man. Was there another Fuller on it?

---

Raymond has a valid point with the Warren Vs Warring names issues. If someone new starts their tree and doesn't go beyond the surface and wrong stuff that is out there , a big jumbled mess is created. The Warrens are a difficult line. But learning is about getting knowledge , understanding and wisdom. My point wasn't about the universal issue of the naming mess. It was about getting the profiles help. That has happened.  Thank you all. The comment about Hamelin R.J. brought up is interesting. You cannot image how many online trees there are out there for him and each one I've found is different and not one is sourced yet people feed them and pass them on. Thanks y'all.

---

I'm seeing two "broken" theories:

1. Richard Warren of the Mayflower was son of Christopher Warren and Alice Webb
2. Richard Waring of Long Island was son of Christopher Warren and Alice Webb

It looks like neither of these two theories is accurate. Or at least supported by any real strong sources...

---

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=121aCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT179

is the offending book.  The sad part is that somebody wasted the time writing it.

Richard Mayflower Warren was supposedly in his 40s in 1620, so you can see why the dates have had to be fiddled. 

(And Gundred wasn't the daughter of William the Conqueror)

 

---

Then there's this:

https://archive.org/stream/reportandtransa02artgoog#page/n548/mode/2up

But this is all wrong as well.  Amery wasted his time looking for Headborough at Bunker Hill because the Arbella immigrant came from Suffolk, not Devon.  Christopher and Alice's son John was only about 12 or 13 when the Winthrop fleet sailed.

 

 

---

Looks like the JC Warren who misidentified the Arbella immigrant may be the only source for the claim that the first John Warren of Hedbury came out of Nottinghamshire, so that'll have to go on the questionable list.

WikiTree doesn't have the Nottinghamshire claim.  It rolls the first John into Sir John Warren of Poynton, Cheshire, with a lot of help from the mangled dates, and chucks in a gratuitous Suffolk link as well.

Then there's his supposed daughter-in-law Margaret Leigh and her two doppelgangers, another fine mess.  The real Margaret Legh of Lyme married Lawrence Warren of Poynton, son of Sir John.  They were not the parents of William of Hedbury.  Genealogics is completely off the rails here, citing a dubious source.

There's a string of wills for the Suffolk family, ancestors of Arbella Warren, but they're a brick wall - no sniff of any connection with Nottinghamshire, Cheshire or Devon.

---

https://archive.org/stream/reportandtransa02artgoog#page/n282/mode/2up

Ashburton tax list 1588.  Page 248, William Warren, p 249 William Werren.  Two different people?

Also p251 Alexander Weren in Staverton.

Page 253, 1599 Poor Rate.  William Warryng de Ledburye, p254, William Warringe de Caten.  Same person?

Alumni Oxon seems to say that Christopher was Warringe in his Oxford record.

Were the Hedbury lot Warings really, and some of them mutated into Warrens?

 

 

Answer 4

Raymond, RJ, and Trudy (and Helen?),

Will you help figure out how best to go from here? I see that we need to do the following:

1. Identify, correct, and source all entries for the known, documented children of Christopher Warren (who is currently inaccurately? with an LNAB of Waring) and Alice Webb. What is the best source(s) for this identification? I think one such source may be the Thomas Warren 1902 book, listed below.
2. Disconnect any parents from Richard Warren-66, nephew (not son) of Mayflower passenger Edward Fuller.
3. Disconnect any parents from Richard Waring-286, Long Island settlers by 1660s. He had a sister Katherine, who remained in England, who m1 Thomas? Doxey; m2 Daniel Lane. Richard and Katherine had an uncle Richard Waring who lived in London. The name of their father is not known. Source: Donald Lines Jacobus, NYGBR 102(1971):1-5. More sources sought.
4. Draft an overview of the Source problems. This includes:
   • Walt English, "Family," Lulu Press, Inc., February 14, 2015. [NOTE TO RJ: The web page says this is a novel.]
   • J.S. Amery, "The Warrens of Headborough and their Descendants," in Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Report and Transactions - The Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature ..., Vol. 28, 1896, p 494-  This book appears to be discussing a Winthrop fleet passenger, John Warren of Headborough, who apparently arrived with Winthrop in 1630 on the Arbella. [we'd need to confirm this.] This supposedly is the forefather of the Boston Warrens, including a General Joseph? Warren who fought and has a statue at Bunker Hill.
   • John C. Warren, Genealogy of Warren with some Historical Sketches, (Boston: John Wilson & Son, 1854). This claims that one William Warren married Gundreda, fourth daughter of William the Conqueror. (What's the source for the claim that the Conqueror had no such daughter?)  Gundreda (whoever daughter she was) and William were founders of the Cluniac Priory at Lewes, where they were buried, their remains supposedly discovered in 1845. The book then goes on to work its way through the various Earls of Warren. On pages 42-43, the author discusses Christopher Warren (apparently of Headborough) who m. Alice Webb, and had children among them a Richard. Of course this mid 19th century work has NO source information. He doesn't even make reference to parish records. The author claims that one of Christopher's sons was the John Warren who came with Winthrop in 1630 (and therefore was ancestor of the Bunker Hill general Warren). On page 53, the author discusses Richard Warren of Plymouth, claiming that he was of the same stock as above, brother of Robert (parson of Rame, Cornwall) and of John who came with Winthrop in 1630. His claim that the pilgrim Richard was brother of winthrop John appears to be based on the fact that the same given names appear in each others' lines of descent. 
   • "Warrens in America," a 1912 article in Genealogy: a weekly journal of American ancestry, argues against ANY of them (including a William Warren of Virginia) being descended of the famous earls of Warren, though does claim that John Warren, 1630 Arabella passenger, was indeed son of Christopher Warren and Alice Webb of Headborough (but see next; this is disproved as well). He does not place Mayflower Richard Warren as son of this family. 
   • Thomas Warren, A History and Genealogy of the Warren Family in Normandy, Great Britain and Ireland, ... private printing, 1902. Documents, making reference to original sources, a variety of Warren families in England. Starting on page 69 is discussion of Christopher Warren of Headborough. And page 71 shows how Christopher Warren's and Alice Webb's son Richard could NOT have been the Richard Warren of the Mayflower OR Richard Waring of Long Island. Specifically, it documents that Richard Warren, son of Christopher and Alice, was bapt. 15 Aug 1619 (year before the Mayflower and when Mayflower Richard was 40 years of age!), was a merchant of Greenwich, Kent, married by 1649 Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver Ivatt, and widow of Francis Marsh/March. They had two sons born Greenwich, Richard and John. NOTE: This same work lists a son John of Christopher and Alice and documents John as staying in England, and therefore could not be the John Warren who comes over on the Arabella in 1630!
   • I'm sure there's more, but I've run out of time this morning.
      

Comments

Thank You Jilliane.

---

I have no real interest in any connections to America but have chased down what I could find about Christopher Warren and Alyce Webb. Personally, I think that any profile should only contain information with some sort of evidence and other things should be pruned. This doesn't solve the problem of people latching on. It maybe that the profile needs to be protected to try to prevent unsourced additions,

This is what I found this afternoon

(sadly it's all indexes and transcription and secondary evidence; if this were my family I would be visiting the Devon records office when I could or asking online parish clerks for lookups))

1) according to the IGI batch number C051221. there were 3 boys, son of Christopher baptised at Ilsington

Thomas baptised 2 September 1621

Christopher baptised 8 Feb.1623

William baptised 7 January 1626

2) A preview for the Dictionary of National Biography , Oxford 2004 (I don't have access) says

"Warren, Sir William (bap. 1627, d. 1695), naval contractor, baptized at Ilsington, Devon, on 7 January 1627, was the sixth son of Christopher Warren (d. 1626), vicar of Ilsington, and his wife, Alice Webb. William was admitted to the Drapers' Company in 1650. The first official record of him comes ......"  

Further research finds that this William Warren has over 150 references in Pepy's diary https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Willam+Warrren+Pepys

Edit:However, the IGI baptism date and this one are a year apart.

3) The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, Comprising a ... By Sir Bernard Burke C B LL D  Volume 3 First Published 1842 says

Arms had been granted to" Warren (Hedbury, co Devon, Rame, co Cornwall and London as the arms of Rev. Robert Warren, Rector of Rame, Cornwall,  John Warren and Richard Warren of Greenwich, merchant.Christopher Warren of London and William Warren ,of London, sons of Christopher Warren who was the great-grandson of John Warren of Hedbury in the parish of Ashburton;Devon."

4) Heraldic church notes from Cornwall : containing all the heraldry and genealogical particulars on every memorial in ten churches in the deanery of East, with copious extracts from the parish registers, annotated with notes from wills, etc. by Jewers, Arthur John, 1848-https://archive.org/details/heraldicchurchno00jewerich

contains the following

Another  floor slab has a large well cut shied of the arms of Warren of Hedbury in Ashburton, granted 14th March, 1623 or rather confirmed for the arms were allowed at the Vistation 1620…..

" Here Lyeth the Bodie of Robert Warren, Rector of Rame, who Died the 7th Day of February 1658" He was the son of Christopher Warren by Alice, daughter of Thomas Webb of Sydenham Damerell  (married there 15th June 1613 as Mr Christopher Warren and Alice Webb;vide Par Reg)

And his baptism is there recorded as having taken place on 8th October, 1615; a sister, Anne, having  been baptised 1st May, 1614 and a brother, Richard, on the 15th August, 1619, as we learn from the same valuable source of information, the Parish register.

Robert Warren married Margaret, daughter of Peter Burgess of Petertavy, by who he had five sons and two daughters, viz, Christopher, Robert, Thomas, Peter, Nathaniel, Margaret and Ann.

(extracts from the parish register follow for grandchildren born of Robert who seems to have become the next Rector  and  his wife Priscilla)

Page 133 of the book contains the extracts from the Sydenham  Register for the marriage of Christopher Warren and Alyce. She appears to be the daughter of Robert Webbe, the 'pastor of Sydenham ( There may also be transcripts of the baptisms; there are 'hits' in the text that I haven't  followed up)

So we have

Christopher Warren great grandson of  John Warren  of Hedsted, Ashburton Devon b.1585 (Oxoniensis)

married  in 1613, Alyce  Webbe probably  d of Robert Webbe pastor of Sydenham (b 1689?) Robert's wife Alice was buried in 1624.

children.

Anne 1614, Robert 1615, Richard 1619 baptised Sydenham Damerell

Thomas 1621, Christopher 1623, William 1626

(only 5 sons, not the 6 of the DNB)

Christopher died 1626 as vicar of Ilsington

 

 

 

 

 

---

Thanks for this, Helen.

It looks pretty clear that NONE of Christopher Warren and Alice Webb's children went to America. American descendants have tried to attach several different Warrens to this couple, but the 1902 genealogy by Thomas Warren does a pretty good job of documenting (not the way we would today, but nonetheless pretty good) of their children-- they all stayed in England. Looks like grandchildren did too.

So the American Warrens (and Warings) DO need to detach their claws from this particular British couple.

---

Christopher married Alice Webb daughter of THOMAS WEBB in 1613 at Sydenham Damarel. They had a daughter Anne [1614]and then sons Robert [1615] JOHN [1617] Richard [1619] Thomas [1621] Christopher [1623] and possibly William [1626]. I say possibly because the book History of the Warren Family by Reverend Thomas Warren shows the data supplied by the visitations to be incorrect from about Thomas down through William. It appears that the "later hand" may have written in children not belonging to Christopher Warren. It appears odd to me that a widow left with only £287 [pounds] could feed, clothe and school her children [William was a newborn and Chris and Thomas were toddlers] and send them to college and assisting them to become great men of deeds in London and Plymouth. It is my opinion that a severe error has taken place in heraldry. John Warren b1617 married Alice Burgess at Exeter in 1638 and this has been a sticking point for me. My John Warren arrived at Marnhull during the civil disturbances [kingly loyalty] and arrived with his son John born 1658 but without a wife named Alice [Webb] Warren. Also John [b1658] marries a Ruth about 1694 and has sons John, Robert and Christopher with daughters Mary and Ruth. It appears to me that either a gross error has been made [certainly from Thomas b 1621] down or my forebears were from Ashburton but from a brother to Christopher married Alice Webb. The Quarterings for Christopher's family are correct via the marriages but I believe that there was a major error by the "later hand", one that has left the arms and etc in disarray.

---

The baptisms of Thomas, Christopher and William are in the Ilminster register.  We don't have one for John, but I expect he was baptised at Ipplepen by his father.

The family weren't poor, they had property - the farm at least.  This isn't included in the inventory.

The "Visitation" pedigree can be dated between 1655 (birth of Nathaniel, shown) and 1668 (death of Rev Robert, enabling his son to marry and start a family - not shown).  The informant seems well-informed - he knew about Richard's marriage and his 2 sons, though they were recent and a long way from Devon.  However, he was uncertain where to put Thomas in the sequence of brothers.  The minor mystery is that John's marriage isn't shown.

I can't see anything that contradicts the "Visitation" pedigree.  If Rev Thomas did misidentify William, which I doubt, that was his mistake.  He probably got it from the DNB.  He didn't get it from the pedigree, where William is described only as a merchant, which might mean no more than a shopkeeper.  It's unlikely there would be serious genealogical confusion over living people.

The quarterly-of-8 arms are just a presentational device.  They appear in an unofficial manuscript created by an arms painter for his own purposes.

John's supposed career doesn't add up - if a man married in 1638 has a child in 1658, we're going to think that child wasn't the first, so where are the others?

As for the unrecorded brother of Christopher, we're not going to start inventing people to create a connection between two families when there's no evidence that any connection exists.  We've already had more than enough of that sort of thing to untangle with the Wormegay/Poynton/Notts/Suffolk mess.

---

Hello Helen .I am Andrew Warren.Do you know if the Christopher Warren 1623 is the same Chrstopher Warren born in llisington 1623 and died in Marnhull Dorset 1695 ?

---

Katherine and Richard Waring, siblings.  Their father was Michael Waring (brother of Richard Waring who arrived on the Mayflower), their mother died when they were young (Katherine about 11, Richard about 8).  Katherine arrived in New England as a passenger on the Anne, (1623?) along with her Uncle Richard Waring's wife and family and her young brother Richard.  John Winthrop Jr. knew the elder Richard Waring and took responsibility for the two young children - Katherine and Richard.  Letters document the fact that Katherine was a servant in the Winthrop home, likely her brother was as well.  John Winthrop, Jr. was the first Governor of Pequot (later named New London, CT).  Thomas Doxey arrived in Pequot with John Winthrop.   Thomas D was a sailor and a yeoman.  He married Katherine in 1650, and he died in December 1651, the same year his son Thomas Jr was born.  An inquest into his death was required by John Winthrop and depositions taken of witnesses.  Thomas Doxey was helping to right the sales on a ship in Pequot Harbor (New London CT) where he was a passenger, and fell into the cold December water.  By the time the ship was able to turn around he was gone.  His son, Thomas Jr. was sent back to England (Taylor Merchant School) to be educated when he was ten years old.  Katherine married Daniel Lane in 1652.  They had five children and moved to Setauket / Brookhaven in about 1660.   Daniel was later arrested for incest with his daughter and jailed, escaped and wasn't seen again.  Katherine was granted a divorce and then married Thomas Moore of Southold, Long Island.  When Thomas M died in about 1691 Katherine was still living.  I've been trying to find out where she was buried.  Since her younger brother Richard was also living in Brookhaven at the time she was, she may be buried there.  I don't think the Warings and Warrens are the same family.

Ellen Doxsey Stevenson

Answer 5

Ray,

Actually, there's a possibility that CHristopher Warren was the parent (or grandparent) of the Richard Waring of Brookhaven, Long Island. Let's put it this way: it's not impossible UNLESS you have further information about the lineage of Christopher's son Richard who was born in 1619. 

Rev. Thomas Warren's 1902 genealogy, p 71, says that Richard, bpt 15 Aug 1619 (son of Christopher and Alice) was a merchant in London and married Elizabeth Ivatt Marsh, daughter of Oliver, widow of Francis. And that they had two sons born in Greenwich:

1. Richard, b 14 Apr 1649
2. John, b 8 Aug 1650

Thomas Warren does not say much further about this line other than that the two boys were pupils at Mr. Dugard's private school and later at Merchant Taylors' school - both in London.

 

Richard Waring of Brookhaven, Long Island had at least four sons, the oldest two being Richard and John in that order. Jacobus, in his 1971 analysis of the Brookhaven Waring family, does not provide births of Richard and John. He does say that John removed to Philadelphia in 1732. He says that Richard Jr married a Lydia. 

 

But Jacobus also states that Richard the elder was married to a daughter of Thomas Akerly. We know that Richard, son of Christopher above, was married about 1648 to Elizabeth Ivatt Marsh.

 

Do you have any further information than Thomas Warren published about the London family of Richard Warren and Elizabeth Ivatt Marsh or their children?

 

If we can prove that they stayed in England, then we can detach Richard Waring of Brookhaven, Long Island, from Christopher and Alice.

Comments

Merchant Taylor's register included:

Richard  b 1649 s of Richard merchant of Greenwich, attended Merchant Taylors  became Vicar of Warnborough in Hampshire.p247 https://archive.org/details/aregisterschola01schogoog  (funny how these people keep linking up with places I know well; I went to that church for a while. It  keeps it interesting)

The CCED has him at Warnborough instituted in 1681 and still there in 1691

Oxioniensis says

He in turn had a son Richard who went to Christchurch Oxford and the Middle Temple and a son Vincent who became a clergyman. http://www.mocavo.co.uk/Alumni-Oxonienses-the-Members-of-the-University-of-Oxford-1500-1714-Their-Parentage-Birthplace-and-Year-of-Birth-With-a-Record-of-Their-Degrees/882104/311

The same page has Robert son of Christopher who became vicar of Rame .He wasn't born in 1634, this entry says that  he matriculated in 1634 aged 19 (makes more sense) his son Robert is the next entry and he  also became v of Rame ,he  apparently inscribed as 'paup fil'

(time to give up for the night)

There is also a good  index of  Devon wills here, including  inventory drawn up by Alice wife of Christopher and the will of Richard vicar of Warnborough for 1692 http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/DevonWillsProject/DWP-Wa-We.html

Edit 2 

 5 papers relating to claims to the barony of Braye' (google books)

  includes extracts from the wills of both Richard d 1692 and his father Richard died later in 1697 .

The younger Richard V of Wharnborough had 5 children, Richard, Vincent, (already mentioned)  Thomas, John and Catherine. 

 This Richard son of Richard V of Wharnborough  inherited Marden in Tewin in Hertfordshire from his grandfather and died in 1767.

There are further details about the other children going through the fate of each ( daughter Catherine's g daughter for example seems to end up dying a workhouse) 

 Basically this part of the enquiry was  to establish that there were no living descendants from Richard V of Wharnborough's wife Katherine. (gets complicated ,I think that she was Katherine Vincent d of Anthony Vincent, a baronet.  She appears to have married  W Gardiner after Richard's death but died at aged 29 in 1696; having had a daughter who married but had no issue)  

 

 So if Richard died 1697 is in fact  Richard son of Christopher and Alice, his descendants remain in England into the 18th century and then (I think) die out.

 

---

Helen, you rock. Thank you.

---

Helen, how does one access the actual wills and other probate docs?

---

They are both on Ancestry.

Name:

Richard Warren

[Richardi Warren]

Probate Date:

16 Oct 1694

Residence:

South Warnborou, Hampshire, England

The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 421

Name:

Richard Warren

[Richardi Warren]

Probate Date:

13 Jun 1701

Residence:

Tewin, Hertfordshire, England

The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 460

The enquiry includes a transcription of the whole of the elder Richards will

(NB just noticed I spelt   Warnborough incorrectly with an h several times, it was late is my excuse!)

---

Wow. Thanks again, Helen. I don't have access to the International or UK version of Ancestry. It would be great to extract some details for the relevant profiles, when we get there.

I've cleaned up Christopher's profile, including most of the references you found, Helen.

Ray, note that they do confirm that Sir William Warren, knight, was indeed a son of Christopher and Alice.

Helen, please take a look at CHristopher's profile. There are a couple of places where I don't know the full title of something you abbreviated-- e.g., CCED. If you could clean those up a tad, that would be awesome.

Thanks.

---

And now I'm going in and detaching the "bad" children.

---

Clergy of the Church of England data base  http://theclergydatabase.org.uk/

 It's sources are diocesan records drawn up at the time including registers that record ordination and appointments to livings, licenses to preach, resignations and subscriptions to oaths they were required to take

I've added this to the profile and some of the wills.

Jillaine, I don't see any evidence for Richard the elder being married to an Elizabeth Marsh.  We know from his will that his wife had predeceased him and was buried at Tewin.(under his pew) The burial records for Tewin are on Find my past but I haven't access. This would at least give a Christian name.

We also only know that this Richard was a Merchant in Greenwich , it's not impossible that there was more than Richard Warren in Greenwich.(I did find the death of one in April 1666 ,in Deptford; he's amongst pages of plague victims but not marked as a plague death. Most of the better off though didn't stay in London during the plague)

 I have  though found two Warren baptisms with Richard as father John  26 Aug 1651 - St Alfege, London, England and Thomas at the same church on 6 August 1655 (father given as Mr Richard Warren, so suggests a richer member of the congregation)There is no baptism of a Richard in 1649  I but often first children were baptised at the home of the mother.

 

---

Helen, thanks for pointing out the lack of support for Richard Warren (b 1619) marrying Elizabeth Ivatt, widow of Francis Marsh/March. This claim is made on page 71 of Thomas Warren's 1902 genealogy. He cites a 1629 London marriage record for Elizabeth Ivatt, 15 [therefore b abt 1613] to Francis March (26), but does not indicate how he knows that the widow Elizabeth Marsh went on to marry Richard Warren.

 

---

I can't find any marriage for him .

(I didn't note St Alpheges is in Greenwich, not London (well not then!)

---

Found another source for Richard's marriage to Elizabeth Ivatt March.

The Visitation of the County of Devon made in 1620, p 300.

I have no idea how reliable this is.

Answer 6

Pedigree

https://archive.org/stream/visitationcount02camdgoog#page/n317/mode/2up

and again

https://archive.org/stream/visitationcount02camdgoog#page/n373/mode/2up

Note this wasn't recorded in 1620 - most of the people in it weren't born then.  It's probably correct but it's not known where it came from. 

Burke's General Armoury has a lot of Warren arms, and mostly they're variants of the 5th Earl's arms - checky or and az.  The Hedbury arms are completely different, though they're identical to the arms of Warren of Walterstaff in Devon, granted in 1623.

There's also a Herts family with different arms - Herts is where the Mayflower immigrant came from.

 

 

Comments

Gundred:

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/matil000.htm

and

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/gundred/gunindex.shtml

 

---

JC Warren evidently got most of his early information from an earlier book, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey, by Rev John Watson.

Watson was Vicar of Halifax and later Rector of Stockport.  This was Warenne territory, hence his interest - nothing to do with immigrants.  Apparently there was a Sir George Warren trying to lay claim to the ancient title on the basis of a fake pedigree.

Watson did a good job of collecting sources.  But like most antiquarians of his day, he sucked up to the gentry, and he had major misunderstandings of English history.  And you could have sold him the Brooklyn Bridge.

And in at least one place he has to be accused of deliberate cheating in support of Sir George's claim.

Watson Vol 1

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_VeVwcwUUG4C&pg=PA302&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vol 2

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n1TlFWyBG5UC&pg=PA75&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

JC Warren takes things a step further by removing all mention of the mistress and the children from his chapter on the "last Earl" .  This is quite blatant, considering that Watson goes into detail about the financial arrangements that the Earl made for them.

A good website

http://www.warrenfamilyhistory.com/Docs/Our%20Warrens%20in%20England.htm

 

Answer 7

The Data out there is so screwed up. It looks like people are taking pieces from several to fit with their need.

Christopher Waring, 1598 - 1626
Christopher Waring was born in Before 1598, at birth place, KY.,
Parents: William Waring and Ann Waring (born Mable).
William was born in Ilsington, Devon, England.
Christopher married Alice Waring (born Webb) on month day 1615, at age 17.
Alice was born Before 1599.
Son: Richard Waring.
Christopher passed away in month 1626, at age 28.

Comments

Etc Etc

http://www.myheritage.com/names/christopher_waring

There's about 3 dozen of these and I didn't notice a correct one.  That's just the Warings, before we start on the Warrens.

 

---

Some of the dates for Alice have her having children in her 60s. You'd think a little common sense would come into play.

( or software that catches these impossible scenarios.My home software annoys me sometimes when with  signalling a possible error when a 45 year old woman genuinely does has a birth or when someone marries at an older age  but it's better that you have to think again)

---

A lot of people have been caught out by the 1620 Visitation manuscript, not realising that the Warren pedigree wasn't entered in 1620 but was added at least 30 years later.  The pedigree has no dates at all.

When Jewers wrote the Heraldic Church Notes, he had dates, but he still thought the arms were entered in 1620.

---

Mike, this material is also useless in incorrect. Christopher Warren [no Waring and never was] was Born 1685, he married Alice Webb daughter of Thomas Webb of Sydenham Damerel in Devon. Their first child [Annwas born in 1614, their second and heir [Robert] was born 1615, their third my John married Alice Burgess daughter of same as above in 1638 at Exeter in Devon]] was born 1617, the fourth [Richard] was born 1619, the fifth, [Thomas] was born 1621, the sixth [Christopher] was born 1623 at Ilsington, Devon, the seventh [William] was born 1626 at Ilsington also. This then gives you the family birth years except Alice who I believe was born between 1585 and 1595. All of the above is embedded in my memory because it is my family and can be found on page 69 of Thomas Warren's History and also on page 91 [Marnhull] where my family can be found covering 1617 through 1790 when my GGF left Marnhull to live in Southampton after his father Martin Short Warren and his mother Anna Maria Short Warren both died of Smallpox in 1779. Sadly, I have been unable to find the burial details of Martin for he disappeared at that time, probably into a hospice. There were two Martin Warrens at that time in Marnhull, the other was Martin married Elizabeth.

---

I agree. What I said is that 1 seemed to be the one that they have added to or taken from to try and make something out of nothing which is fitting their own need.

Mike

I posted the 1st actual generation done by the Earl Of Warren traveling the world many years ago, copping historical records and form family bibles as well as church records and those records in cities and parishes.

---

The Warren Family Website which you refer to as a "good" website is another American line [like the Carson line] trying to equate with the Royals. Humphrey Warren is listed as leaqving England for the West Indies where he died without issue in 1680 [John Watson] . Now knowing the American way of grabbing at straws, we should be accepting what has been said about Humphrey Warren of Stockport Warrens but they do not, they present papers claiming that Humphrey was of Charles County Md and he died in 1671 without making a will?? Now how and why would a 38-year-old Gent from such a well endowed family not leave a will to cover his "wife and child", especially when he already had a lawyer to handle his business dealings? There are several things wrong with the American Family Warren of this website, firstly, the gentleman who,prepared the site did a very good job in painting an historic picture of what he hopes are his true family but he has been stymied on a couple of fronts, John Watson's information on Humphrey Warren of the Stockport Warrens and the lack of wills and "unknowns" involved in the wife and children of his supposed marriages, They attempt to show he married more than once and that he brought his child over to Maryland after he had lived there for some years. He also is said to have brought the son without his mother?? They then state that he died in 1671? This line is full of discrepancies and although a "pretty" blog, it could never be believed until factual evidence has been passed in. It is strange that books and papers written on the subject state that John Watson wrote his material 100 years after Humphrey Warren had died and yet his detractors are writing their data 400 years after Humphrey's death and are squawking that they are correct and Watson is  wrong. It is clearly a case of mix-up as Humphrey belonging to Stockport died in the West Indies without children and a Humphrey died in Maryland in 1671 with 3 wives and one imported son. This family may have been longtime residents of America dating from the convict period, who knows? You will note that the Author of the Warren Family site has attired himself in clothes of old and has visited himself in all areas in an attempt to claim a royal heritage without absolute proof. Here is the Dna Haplogroup [see below] of that family of Humphrey Warren of Stockport 1632.= I-M253.

My own Haplogroup is R-M269 [from Christopher Warren born 1623 at Marnhull], exactly the same as William De Warren the first Earl of Surrey, R-M 269. The Stockport Warren Family do not appear to have the same R grouping as 90% of the rest of the Warren family and also the Conquerors family, so who are they really? If the Humphrey Warren of Charles County Maryland is related to the Stockport Warren family then a check of the DNA Haplogroup should show it. I have also paced below a showing of how the Waring family use every twist to become Warrens.

Earwaker relates that as a consequence of the publication of a book 'History of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey' by the Rev. Watson, Sir George Warren, last male heir of the line, believed that Sir John Borlase Warren KB of Stapleford in Nottinghamshire was a descendant of the Warrens of Poynton. Later research showed this to be untrue as Sir John was great grandson of Arthur Warren who was son and heir of another Arthur Warren who was son and heir of Sir Arnold Waring, knighted 4 March 1632/3 and descended from a Warwickshire family of that name. They had, however, used the name Warren for several generations and tried to prove themselves descended from a younger branch of the Warrens of Poynton. Viscountess Bulkeley shared this belief and in her will dated 10 March 1823 arranged to leave large estates in Cheshire and other counties, including the manors of Stockport and Poynton to the use of Frances Maria, only daughter and heir of Admiral the Right Hon. Sir John Borlase Warren of Stapleford, Nottinghamshire,

---

Oo-er.  I didn't check out the whole site, I only read the early part.

 

The haplogroup of the 1st Earl is unknown, as there are no proved male lines of descent.  Somebody seems to have submitted his yDNA to the Warren DNA project claining the 1st Earl as his male-line ancestor, but if the projects don't check these things out they aren't going to get far.

Where does the Conqueror's family come in?  His yDNA isn't known either.

According to the accepted paper trails, the Poynton Warrens descend in the male line from Geoffrey of Anjou via Hamelin, who married Isabel de Warenne, 4th Countess of Surrey in her own right.  So they should have the same yDNA as Geoffrey's other male-line descendants, Richard III and the Somersets, who as we now know don't match.

But the Warrens in the DNA project don't match either of them.  This means

(a) there are NPEs in both the York and Somerset lines, and/or

(b) there's an NPE in the Warren line, and/or

(c) the accepted origin of the Poynton line is wrong.  It's generally taken to have been settled in the 19th century (when Sir George's fake pedigree was demolished) - but only to the standards of the time.  I doubt if it would stand up as new research, but too many of the pronouncements of 19th-century "authorities" have yet to be questioned.

---

I'm not totally convinced about the surname either.  We know that Warings had a tendency to change their name to Warren - it happened in the Notts line and it happened in the Long Island line.  Christopher and his father both seem to have used the spelling Warringe and we don't seem to have many earlier records.  And their ancestry is unknown.

---

I have long been an opponent of DNA without the originator because there are too many who wish to or have changed from one family name to the next.  It may be that the French have tahen the 1st Earls YDNA from family in Normandy, I have never had my DNA done but I do understand this, the multitude of WARREN families are of the R grouping with R-M269 as the greater proportion of the R group. This group is said to be about 28,850 years old or thereabouts and has come down from the western regions of Anatolia and western Europe. Do not ask me how the age of the DNA is arrived at as I do not know. No the Conqueror only has a femur that can be used for DNA tests but his sons that became Kings must have progeny that have been tested and we do know that the bastard children of John Warren have the DNA of the 1st Earl and that those bastard children became knights and etc so how do we know that the DNA of the 1st Earl is not available through the bastards? Next, as a Warren and as having studied heavily on the Waring line, I have found complaints in many quarters regarding the Warings changing to Warren and even trying to buy their way in with bribes. I do not know why this is so unless it is something to do with the hatred surrounding the Norman invasion. The Jews have been proponents of the name change for centuries, it opens doors and this is probably what is going on there. Take a look at the painting of Sig George Warren of Poynton, I have never seen a nose like that on any Warren anywhere. It either a painting of a local Mayor and not Sir George or Sir George Warren is not af any Warren family I have ever seen, The Warrens are of Danish origin and maintain their square faces pretty well, as for the Warringe, that is not the way Christopher spelled his name, it will be the way the recorder pronounced it, remember that Warren came from Varrenne in Normandy and this can easily be pronounced Varrenge depending on the recorder. In Marnhull we have people that took the Warren name whenever they worked for of married into the Warrens, they were a family  named Sydling-Sidlin-Sydlen-Sidlen-Sydlin who were quickly pronounced Sydlinge-Warren or Warren-Sydlinge. The name Sidling is supposed to have originated in that part of Devon/Dorset. In regard to DNA, I think that it will not be too long before we find that history will be turned on it's head because DNA will find out who belongs to whom.

---

William The Conqueror and William De Warren were cousins and their Haplogroup would have both been R-M269 as shown in DNA project sites. Whether this can be taken as fact at this moment, is up to the reader, the greater showing of Haplogroups is the R line for the Warrens with the R-M269 being the multitude. At this moment in time I accept that Both the Conqueror and his General Warren cousin were of the R-M269 grouping because that grouping in Southern England is by far the strongest and most numerous. .

---

There are always unrecorded sons, legitimate or not.  No doubt the Warennes had some.  But you can't trace yDNA lines back through unrecorded people.

The 1st Earl and the Conqueror weren't male-line cousins.  They were 2nd cousins once removed by descent from Herfast de Crepon (not his real name) through 2 of his daughters, allegedly.

---

I really have to laugh at this comment from Ray: "I have found complaints in many quarters regarding the Warings changing to Warren and even trying to buy their way in with bribes. I do not know why this is so unless it is something to do with the hatred surrounding the Norman invasion. The Jews have been proponents of the name change for centuries, it opens doors and this is probably what is going on there." My Waring>Warren line is that of Richard WARING of Long Island. Richard's 3rd great grandson (and my 3rd great grandfather) Arthur Wearren/Warren (1810-1895) is the first in my line to use the name WARREN. Originally it was spelled WEARREN. To suggest that HE changed it to Warren for some gain is laughable. These people were illiterate. Spelling errors in Colonial America usually happened because people were illiterate and could not even recognize their own name and that followed into the 19th century, as evidenced by wills signed with an X. I've seen documents that contain three different spellings of the same surname. I have been contacted by many descendants of this WARING family who today carry the surnames of Wearen, Waring, and Warren. It's wonderful that people are now "demanding" documentation; however, when I first started doing genealogy in the 1970s we did not have the luxury of the Internet. Also, if we did have the good fortune of being able to travel to a courthouse to do research there was no way to get a copy of a document. There were no copy machines available to make copies of a document. So we wrote by hand what was contained in a document. Would that hand-written "document" pass muster today? No! And many of us got our genealogical "proof" by writing letters to relatives who had first-hand knowledge of family events like births, marriages, and deaths. I have letters that not only contain facts about families but also contain everyday events such as decorating for a holiday or "putting up" jam. What a shame that these kinds of "documents" are not considered as a "source document" and if you think I'm wrong about that, try using one as a source to gain membership in a lineage society. I know because I'm a member of several. 

Regards, Elaine Hatfield Powell, aka The Heritage Lady, Proud Granddaughter of Catherine (Warren) Hatfield Rieker www.TheHeritageLady.com

Answer 8

Okay, we have detached Christopher Warren (currently at Waring-228) and Alice Webb from all profiles of people who went to America. A number of people contributed, but I want to particularly thank the following:

Thank you Ray Warren for bringing this to our attention.

Thank you Helen Ford for so much research on the British side of the pond.

Thank you RJ Horace for your thoughts and links to various places for us to review (especially the problematic 1620 visitation record, and the discussions of Gundreda).

Thank you Chase Ashley for excellent documentation on and discussion about the post-immigration Brookhaven Waring family profiles.

We still have some cleanup to do on the various immigrant profiles. While incorrect relations have been detached, I don't think we've cleaned up all the narratives that may still have bogus claims in them. 

This effort revealed additional challenges:

1. The two John Warrens (immigrants) of Boston and Watertown, respectively. One is claimed to be father of Peter who is known ancestor of Gen. Joseph Warren who died at Bunker Hill-- he's not. And it's also likely that the two Johns have information that relates to the other. So more work is needed there.
2. The line UP Christopher's is messed up. The names are correct, but the dates are totally out of whack. The information was drawn from that "1620" Visitation record (which has been shown to have been added at a later date, not in 1620). There's a pedigree in there with names, but NO dates; they've been estimated in the past and are all wonky before Christopher.  IF we cannot find better documentation with actual dates, then we need to re-estimate based on Christopher's estimated birth in the late 1580s (which is based on his 1613 documented marriage). 
3. There is still disagreement (here) about Gundreda. From the sources RJ found, it appears she was NOT the daughter of the Conqueror, but Ray disagrees. Personally, I'm not going to touch that one, but will leave it to the EuroAristo project to hammer out.

There are no doubt additional problems related to this line that I'm sure will surface the more we look into it.

 

Thanks everyone for your continued effort on making wikitree profiles accurate.

 

Comments

And the record said Christopher Warryng?!?!? Sounds like yet another attempt by those unscrupulous Warrens to lay claim to the good name of Waring! lol

---

Well I found it in the end Strangely on google books by just searching for the name of the author. The Rev Butcher  was a curate in the parish in 1870 .

 (not getting into whether the entry concerning Christopher Warren  is the same  family/person as the Christopher Warryng 40 years later, I assume that the Genuki indexer listed them as the same person because of the Hedbury link)

A.D. 1542-3.— John Dolbeare, Richard Paty, Christopher Warren and Richard France. (this appears to be the names of the wardens for the year)

A.D. 1579-80 — The account of John Aysshewyke and John Yolland. Receipts11s and V111d To Christopher Warren for two days spending at Exeter

A.D. 1579-80 — The account of John Aysshewyke and John Yolland.

Receipts — Rents assise — from the parish of Buckland xiid, from the parish of Bekyngton viiia  iiiid, from Thomas Eycke, for one tenement near the bridge which he inhabits viiis, and from Christopher Warryng, for one meadow at Hedburye viiis and for xs received for two tenements now the malt myll,

---

I can tell you this regarding Warringe/Warrynge, Christopher Warringe.Warren of Marnhull [married Elizabeth c1658] has an R1 Haplogroup [a little different to mine] and his family have been proved through to now. There were three families in Marnhull at that time, those with the Warren/Sydlinge, Sydlinge/Warren name and two families that stuck with just Warren along with several that stuck with just Sydlinge. I do not know if the inge is a sort of degradation of the Warren Sydlinge in Marnhull but by 1650, the Inge disappears. The DNA results showed that there was a relationship [ smaller than that of the two Warren families] .between Christopher Warringe and the other Warren families in Marnhull .Do not worry, it will all come out in the wash when DNA opens it all up. Try Googling your own site and look at all those around you proclaiming themselves Warren/Waring and look at the big sites that have now taken the Warings out of the Warren system. Waring has it's own coat of arms and is [I think] of Lancashire origin. I notice that other people have the same predicament with their family names ie Horace who have dozens of spelling variations. These variation are due to the accents of the people living in each area, they are not different families other than they have come down different lines but the name Waring is proven in history as not being part of the Warren family and that they coveted the name Warren because of it's connection to the Earls Warren. By the way, Horace is a nice Anglo-Saxon name.

Regards

Ray

---

It amazes me how people can sit back in an armchair and discredit original material, even falsely stating that charters done by King William are false. They all place their wonderful knowledge on Ordericus Vitalis after first mentioning that this old gentleman from 100 years after the events on which he reports, was prone to mistakes. The 19th century [perhaps] historians were following data from this feeble minded old anti-Norman writer. It peeves me somewhat seeing would be Genealogical sites following rubbish instead of researching the subjects themselves. There are many wonderful books on the true Gundrada Story. Ask your self this question, Why would Gundrada be treated as one Royal in every way during her lifetime, why would she receive exactly the same marble burial stone as her mother Matilda? Matilda was buried in Normandy and her grave is still there as are her bones. Beware those who attempt to discredit that which has been known for 1000 years for you all will be found wanting;. Thank goodness for DNA, let us hope that the bones of William De Warren, Gundrada and Matilda can be tested BEFORE the Anglo Saxon grudges destroy the evidence, DNA test this ancient family so that the rubbish written can be retracted. It is worse than the American destruction of the Christopher Warren data on Genealogical sites.

---

Didn't you say you'd never had your DNA done?

---

English used to have nasal vowels, like French.  The name Warin or Waryn (supposedly from a first name, not from a place) was presumably nasal, and that would explain why the ng spellings developed.  None of the lines where ng spellings appear seems to have any sniff or a traceable connection to the Warennes.

Warenne was presumably not nasal, and ng spellings don't seem to appear in the Poynton family.

This all points to a theory that the Waring->Warren mutation didn't only happen in America, but was already happening in England before 1600, and that all Warrens whose ancestors used ng spellings are descended from Warins, not from Warennes.

---

Absolutely, but my fathers brother did have his done and unless I am product of an unseemly union [and many people like to call me that] I suggest that I am probably of the same haplogroup. His results showed that he was a relation to the Yeomen Warrens but that his Haplogroup was r-m269 whereas the other family were something like R1 something or other. I have not had mine done because I really do not need to be related to sombody alive today unless it can be shown that they have a direct line somewhere. Some time ago, I had an argument with a Warren from the same Dorset village from which both our forebears originated during the 15 and 1600's. His family were Yeomen and King name followers  [they used kings names for their children] while my lot were basically following the names of their own forebears ie; Robert, John, Christopher, Richard, Thomas and Nathaniel while the occasional William was thrown in. Reverend Thomas Warren made comment on the unusual continued name following by my lot and it can be seen in the Marnhull branch which he makes stand out with a similar amount of work as he did on the Headborough Warrens.

---

There's a book that connects the Fitzrandolphs of New Jersey to the Earls of Westmoreland pleading that both families liked the names John and Ralph.  People used to think genealogy could be done that way.  But it only works with unusual names.  John is too common.

And no Headborough Warrens were called Robert before the Rev, who presumably got the name from Robert Webb of Sydenham Damerell on his mother's side.  Sydenham was at the other side of Dartmoor, but they made the long and difficult journey for several christenings, so Alice's family were clearly important.

---

I received via email some responses/comments to this part of the thread that now appear to be deleted. And it sounds from them that Ray has now left the building.

While I am thankful that he brought the Warren mess to our attention, I'm more thankful how we all responded to it.  I thought we worked really well together, and while it's not all totally cleaned up, the profiles are in FAR better shape than they were before. 

I want to thank everyone for their (at least public) patience in dealing with Ray's way of communicating. The more we improved the profiles, and the more we discussed original and other high quality sources, the more vehement and rude he became. I just don't get it. Anyway, thank you everyone for keeping as cool as you could.

RJ, neither you nor I deserved the vitriol he poured on us. I hope you let it run off your back.

 

---

Oh I'm all in favour of plain speaking really, I'm more offended by the hidden agenda.

Answer 9

Gundreda is referenced throughout this thread in a number of different places so I am creating a new answer to bring this to our collective attention. Her relationship to the Conqueror has been discussed elsewhere on G2G:

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/23846/did-william-the-conqueror-have-a-daughter-gundred

I suggest that any additional discussion about her be moved to that topic. I also suggest that such discussion, if it continues, remain focused on what the records say and that we keep to ourselves our strong opinions about the personalities and xenophobia of the authors.

Thanks.

Comments

I see Wikipedia has been nobbled as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Warenne,_1st_Earl_of_Surrey

 

 

---

Two things to do with later Warrens ie long after William the I

1)The inventory of effects drawn up after Christopher's death amounted to £227 of goods, a not inconsiderable amount. It's extant so it would be possible to see what type of effects they were. Certainly it's far more than most inventories I've seen  Unfortunately Christopher's will was lost in the Blitz (really surprised there seems to be no transcription)

Re Marnhull.

2) And very much more down to earth, I've been looking at the overseers for the poor accounts for Marnhull between about 1700 and 1725 on Ancestry ( my husband also has ancestor's there and this has been an impetus to look further, I've only just realised these records have been digitised) They contain a lot  of information about the village including the amounts of tax paid by each property owner for poor relief and the people to whom payments  were made  in sickness,  in need and for burial expenses and for services rendered.

I think that if you haven't already looked at it then you might find interesting.

Answer 10

And it goes on and on.  Seems we have a Warenne line for Oliver Cromwell that also looks rather questionable.

Comments

Warren-1176 looks like the Ashburton Progenitor, but not rushing to connect him as his ancestry is a little unsourced.

For future reference, some more Warrens who look like trouble spots

Warren-1456, Warren-53, Warren-918, Warren-45, Warenne-21, Warenne-51, Warenne-122, Warenne-134, De_Warenne-257, etc

Daren't even look at the Ripple, Bassingbourn and Shropshire lines