The COULBY Genealogy
A discourse by Eirlys Spawton – February 1984


A map showing much of the area under discussion below
© Multimap.com

When Ted COULBY started to do his family tree I don’t think he realised quite what it entailed.  I believe that Ted thought that he was descended from yeoman stock; that there weren’t too many COULBYs around spelled in any way whatsoever, ‘COULBY’ which is Ted, or ‘Colby’ or ‘Coleby’ ad infinitum.

But after some years of research a terrific number of COULBYs were found in the 16^th Century onwards especially in areas around Newark, but in other parts of the country as well.  The very earliest reference to COULBY which we believe we have is the will of Roger de Bury rector of Nettleham in 1390 who mentions ‘John COULBY of Lincoln – clerk’.  There’s another will of Lincoln or Lincolnshire in 1393, the executor of the will of Richard Greenacre, Knight of Friskney was Sir William de COULBY.  I would suggest that this Sir William de COULBY was actually from the place called Coleby in Lincolnshire just north of Newark, which is actually in Nottinghamshire. But very much of Ted COULBY’s side figures around Newark, and Newark is within 2½-3 miles of the Lincolnshire boundary on about two sides south and east, and then in the north within about 3 miles.  Lincolnshire begins at Brough which is maybe 2½-3 miles north of Newark.  It’s in the very east of the county of Nottinghamshire and so it’s to be understood that we did find certain references to COULBYs from the 1600’s onwards in Newark that tied in with the COULBYs from around Newark. There’s another will from 1415 – the will of Thomas Ingham of Corby, this is a Lincoln will again, the executor was John COULBY of Ropsley.  Now Ropsley is east of Newark about 8 miles. It’s quite near to Fulbeck which enters into Ted’s family and also it’s quite near to Heckington where a lot of COULBYs were found in the late 17^th century onwards.  But Lincoln’s not alone in having early COULBYs, there are quite a few in London.  In 1463 Thomas COULBY of St Christopher, London also of Corringham, Lincolnshire, 'citizen and draper'. Property in Borougham and Aylesford, both in Kent, and in Bramble Middlesex.  He was buried at St Christopher; left children and brothers; mentions his brothers Robert, John.  Robert is probably the COULBY who left a will which I haven’t got a date for, but his daughter married in 1462 – his daughter Idey.  He was a citizen and draper of London, he was also of Corringham, Lincolnshire.  Then there’s William COULBY, 'citizen and master armourer' buried at St Bennet, Finla, which could be Finsbury, 1499.  There’s Thomas, probably the son of one of these who married Elizabeth Gilbert in 1563, and so on.

But also including someone who was to be very valuable to us, left a will in 1650 a man called Lyon COULBY of London, 'citizen and vintner', and also an Edward COULBY of Holme Nottinghamshire - the parish of North Muskham - this was a will at the Public Record Office. Also Susannah COULBY, 1667 of London, and William COULBY, 1655 of Fulbeck, Lincolnshire.  All of these were to prove absolutely invaluable in the search for the COULBY family.  Marriages at the Society of Genealogists a set of volumes 1600-1650 gives some idea of where the COULBYs were in England: Pinchbeck Lincolnshire, Melton Mowbray Leicestershire, Fen Drayton in Cambridgeshire, St Peters Cambridge, St Edward Cambridge, Spalding Lincolnshire, Radcliffe on Trent Nottinghamshire, and so on.  Boyds Marriage Index around the 1600 1660 mark gives Notts, Lincolnshire, London, Chichester in Sussex, Cambridgeshire, Ipswich and quite a few in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

Thomas de COULBY DD Bishop of Lismore and Waterford who died in 1406 was reputed to be a native of the Parish of Coleby in the county of Norfolk.  I would imagine that most of the COULBY people are descended from folk who were named after one village or another named Coleby.  Whether this man was or not I do not know, he could of course be the Thomas de COULBY mentioned at Lincoln.  Having come from the Lincoln Cathedral court or whatever it was called.  If one looks at the Mormon microfiche for COULBY, the nucleus of COULBY entries are in Lincolnshire.  A few in Nottinghamshire later on and quite a few earlier ones in 1600’s onwards around a place called Settringham in Yorkshire, and a few in Norfolk itself.  There is a pedigree of four generations of COULBY at Beaubridge in Yorkshire.  Surtee's Society Volume 36 - June 1947. This was the 19^th August 1665 that this pedigree was taken in the Hang West Wapentake – Colbye of Beaubridge near Askrigg.  Presumably proving that Alexander COULBY was the son of John COULBY of Beaubridge Hall who was aged 51 in 1665, who was the son of John COULBY of Nappa in Ebor which of course is York who died in 1616 who was the son of Francis COULBY of Lacetown in Suffolk who married the daughter of somebody called Jennings in Suffolk.  Now I don’t know how close these things are to the truth.  What I do know is that at Settrington Yorkshire we found COULBY from as early as 1561 onwards and I would supposition at any rate that the original Francis of Suffolk had actually come from the Settrington lot and then returned to Yorkshire.  But of course this would have to be proved.  At any rate, as far as we know he’s nothing to do with Ted COULBY’s side, although in my opinion all COULBYs were probably connected originally.  At least let’s say that there were two lots, the Norfolk village of Coleby and the Linconshire village of Coleby and I would say without a doubt that Ted COULBY’s have all descended from the Linconshire village of Coleby.  Strange this is that even one of the COULBYs from Settrington in Yorkshire managed to produce a child in Newark.

Luke COULBY of Settrington in Yorkshire who was actually the son of Thomas COULBY of Settrington Yorkshire - Luke was baptised in 1593; has his first child baptised at Newark in 1619.  Well I presume it’s his first because he had, according to Settrington registers, about seven children born from 1621 through to 1636 all the children of Luke and Luce ‘COULEBIE’. And yet in Newark, a Luke COULBY produced William in 1619 and a daughter Margaret who was buried at Newark in 1619.  I wonder if Luke COULBY married somewhere in the Newark area, perhaps he was military and he was stationed around Newark – one just doesn’t know.

One of the things that puzzles me most about the COULBY family is what happened to Sir William de COULBY, the executor of the will of Richard GREENACRE knight of Friskney, 16^th March 1393 - Early Lincoln Wills.  Was he actually from Coleby in Lincolnshire?  It’s probable. It’s possible he was from the Coleby in Norfolk, but what happened to the knighthood?  Did it just disappear, or was it one of those that wasn’t handed down?  Are there any ways of finding out at all what happened to Sir William de COULBY, or, where he was from? ?? Land Act perhaps or the conveyance of land. Did Sir William de COULBY leave a will that is extant? Was it not in Lincolnshire? Because it’s not down in the Lincolnshire Wills and ?? from 1280 to 1547. I think that Sir William de COULBY if found could prove to be the ancestor of the COULBY family of Westborough and Doddington in Lincolnshire and also of Waddington in Lincolnshire which is Ted COULBY’s family.

I should point out right here and now that Ted COULBY was very mistaken when he said that his ancestors were just common ‘ag labs’.  The further back we went the more we found out. We found gentlemen – all the COULBYs – the early COULBYs 16^th century 17^th century 18^th century we found gentlemen – we found doctors – we found military COULBYs involved in the Civil War.  Some of Ted’s direct ancestors were involved in the Civil War around Newark, which was a stronghold for the King, for the Royalists.  Newark never did give in under the siege.  It was besieged for about 3 or 4 years.  There were a lot of army officers stationed in Newark. Obviously there was a lot of the Royalist army there. They built protective places called ‘sconces’.  One of them, 'The Queen’s Sconce' is one of the oldest and it is most certainly one of the most intact in the whole of Britain.  Apart from Ted’s direct ancestors being involved in the Civil War, also people that they married were involved.  The PICKERINGs, the CODDINGTONs and such were all involved some way around Newark.  The trouble is we’ve never really worked out yet whose side they were on.  We found that earlier COULBYs had married into such families as the THOROLDs, the MARKHAMs, the CODDINGTONs, the LEES, the REYNOLDS, the BURBUTTs.  All of these families were gentlefolk; they left wills; they married by licence.  Some of the Lincolnshire licenses for COULBY are as early as 1605, 1617, 1620. That’s from Lincolnshire Marriage Licences 1598-1628, so goodness knows if they had licences before 1598 some of these COULBYs.  They married people with coats of arms.  There’s a coat of arms for THOROLD; there’s also one for CODDINGTON; there’s a COULBY coat of arms too but it was a long time before that was discovered. In fact it was a long time before Ted COULBY discovered that he was descended from gentlemen and not from agricultural labourers.  Some of these COULBYs were gentlemen farmers, some of them worked in other ways.  As I’ve said, there were the vintners and drapers and cloth makers of London.  There was also a Mr John COULBY – a servant of Lord Lexington who married three times actually, all at the same place Arum where Lord Lexington lived.  I believe at that time that this John COULBY was actually descended from one of Ted’s ancestors.  He was born the son of Andrew and Ann LEE – Andrew COULBY who married Ann LEE in 1616 in Lincoln, John was their son and was baptised in 1621 at Claypole near Newark in Lincolnshire and he married three times at Arum.  He only had daughters to who admon was granted after his third wife died – well one of the daughters was granted the admon, no sons to our knowledge.

Rather than go backwards through this pedigree I’m going to start with the earliest definite answers that we have and go through it that way because Ted COULBY has already written an article for Lincolnshire Family History Society on how he tackled his massive breakthrough on a 19^th century COULBY.  Once that had been achieved funnily enough we had a good three centuries before.

So I’ll start with William COULBY of Westborough, Lincolnshire, who left a will in 1547 naming his wife as Cicely and naming some of his children, if not all.  He named John, Elizabeth who later married a Gibson, Margaret, Agnes – both of them married later - Alice and Elizabeth.  There was quite a long time between William COULBY dying in 1547 and his wife Cicely dying in 1573. She was buried in 1573 ‘widow of Westborough’, buried at Westborough.  But fortunately she names more or less the same children, so we can be very sure that William COULBY had married Cicely.  Cicely – of Cicely’s parents, parentage we have no clue really.  She does mention a JESSOP in her will but I believe the JESSOP she mentions is connected with her son John’s wife Isabelle – and I believe it’s Isabelle who was the JESSOP, not Cicely.

William COULBY, will 1547 – 'Being sick in body but whole in mind…'which is what they usually put left money to the churches of Lincoln and of Westborough. His body to be buried in the church of All Hallows, Westborough - '...12 pence to the poor man’s box; three shillings and fourpence to Doddington Bridge; twelve pence to Westborough Bridge; to my son John all my land both heritage and purchase; Daughter Elizabeth twenty Marks; Alice ten pounds; Margaret and Agnes, each of them five pounds...' and to every one of their children a sheep. And also that as long as his wife lives that she will, for the poor folks in the parish, give yearly five shillings.  William COULBY made William THOROLD the Supervisor of his will and gave him ten shillings for his pains.  Witnesses include JACKSON – Richard JACKSON.  The COULBYs were later on to marry into the JACKSONs, and also James ALLCOCK is mentioned in the will.  Later on they were to marry into the ALLCOCK family.

The registers of Dry Doddington and Westborough are very early but they don’t start in 1538. Otherwise we might have picked up some of these children’s baptisms of William and Cicely. There are references to the 1560s onwards – none before that -1550s onwards, there are references to COULBY, baptisms burials and marriages.  A George seemed to figure at the same time as William - there seems to be a George living in Westborough at this same time.  He left a will 10 years later in 1557.  He had a son John, a son William - John married and had children. Two of his children George and William had children at Westborough and then they all seemed to disappear that family - completely, and yet when you realise that the two surviving boys William baptised 1597 and George baptised 1599.  Both married at Lincoln and that William possibly had issue at Newark, and then others at Northorpe near Gainsborough.  It seems that the whole of that family has moved out and away from the village of Westborough Cum Doddington, and yet we did eventually connect George and William and I'm still convinced they were brothers because in the year 1531 to 32, William COULBY was an executor of the will of Parnell Cook a widow of Dry Doddington and he got a third share of the residue of her estate.  A witness of this will of Parnell Cook was George COULBY. 

George's will of 1557 had one of the THOROLDs as Supervisor of it.  In George's will he spoke about land in Long Bennington and in Normanton.  He also spoke about lands and tenements in Doddington.  He too left money to the church in Lincoln - the mother church of Lincoln.  I really believe that if they weren't brothers they were cousins at least.  Later on a great grandson of William COULBY went to live in Waddington.  Here again another connection.  William COULBY of Westborough will 1547 as I said, left most of his possessions to his son John - John of Westborough. John didn't survive his father for very long, he was buried in 1557 at Westborough, so he survived his father for 10 years and died well over 16 years before his mother. He'd married a woman called Isabelle.  By looking at various wills and so on, we've managed to work out that Isabelle was probably the daughter of a man called William or John JESSOP who married an Isabelle a widow who'd first of all married a man called DIMMOCK and this Isabelle left a will in 1574 as Isabelle COULBY naming her daughter Isabelle.  John had a few small children when he made his will.  He mentions his mother Cicely - he mentions Robert his younger son, William his son, Isabelle his daughter and an unborn child.  Body to be buried in the church or churchyard at Westborough - to the mother church at Lincoln something; to the church of Westborough; something for forgotten tithes; for the poor at Westborough; '...for Robert my younger son all my land and tenure that I have in Doddington that now sometime in the occupancy of John THOMPSON, now in the tenure and occupancy of Cicely COULBY...'  I should point out at this point actually that there was a law around the area of Newark for some centuries whereby the youngest son was the chief beneficiary.  Why this was I don't really know unless it was to save the land having to change ownership as quickly.  Because by making one's youngest son the inheritor instead of the older there could be as much as twenty years difference in this because the younger son would not be producing for another 20 years after the older son and if he left to his younger son you can see 40 years difference sometimes between the two or three generations, so maybe this was why.  He carries on does John '...to Isabelle my daughter £13 6s 4d and to a young infant which is unborn, that it may please God to send it life £13 6s 4d provided of then it do not live, then after that the Supervisor shall give the other money, that is to say £26 12s 8d to Isabelle my daughter...' He asked a THOROLD again, this time William THOROLD of Westborough, to look after and be good neighbour to his wife and children and put his trust in him.  He left money to his god-children; to Westborough Crypt; to every soldier within the town of Westborough - here you have the military connections again. Everything un-bequeathed he left to Isabelle his wife and William and Robert his sons whom he made full executors '...providing that if by fortune the said William or Robert do die and leave this present life the survivor would inherit the other one's half...'  He also mentioned his sister COULBY which was probably either Alice or Cicely, and then an inventory was made of all the stuff that John COULBY had left.  But herein lies a little tale, because John's wife Isabelle must have been very very pregnant when he died.  She died within days of him and yet there is a daughter Jane born after her father's death.  She inherited her £13 6s 4s as '...the young infant which is unborn...', and she marries Christopher REYNOLDS in 1580 at Westborough Cum Doddington - REYNOLDS again is a name that figures a lot.  John COULBY's inventory came to £157 12s and took up a lot of space in the writing.  He left a lot of things but to me the mot interesting part of this will is the list of expenses paid by William THOROLD the overseer.  He paid out all the things that were supposed to be aid out by the will and then for '...John COULBY's wife lying in the church 6s 8d; to John GAMBLE because he did the earth at the wife's burial 12s 8d; to William THOROLD, Supervisor of the will given by John COULBY 40s...'  He remembered to pay himself, '...to the executors for John COULBY's mortuary 10s; for the making of both graves 8d; for the reburying of the graves 16d...' ah so John GAMBLE was probably the vicar at the burials, '...for the boarding out of two children 6s...' - this was probably the two younger ones, and so this gives us the evidence that both John and his wife Isabelle died within days of each other and that the unborn child did come into her inheritance.  William THOROLD was, I would imagine, a very good friend and neighbour to these children who'd been left without parents. for he must have paid for all of their board and he obviously, in my opinion, arranged two of their marriages - he probably arranged all four of the marriages of these children, William, Isabelle, Jane and Robert.  Another thing that emerges from William THOROLD's expense account is an item which says '...paid to the Duke of...' it could be Norfolk or it could be Northumberland - it starts with 'Nor' -and we haven't managed to work out what it says yet - but '...paid to the Duke of Nor*** for Michelmas rent 12 shillings...' so obviously John COULBY owned some land and rented other.  Of the four children mentioned in John's will all four did survive.  William the eldest son in his father's will is the main one that we're interested in because he's the direct ancestor of Ted COULBY.  But let's look at the others. 

Robert the younger son probably married a woman called Elizabeth THOMPSON because in Robert's will his father-in-law is named as Henry THOMPSON.  Robert's will was made in 1596/7. He left five children - three sons and two daughters, and one son married and went to Long Bennington. No issue has been found although Long Bennington was searched and it would seem that his line died out.  Son Richard it is believed went to Boston where he left a will in 1609 when he was only aged 22 years and son William probably started the Brant Bruton lot of COULBYs, and later on some of them moved to Bourne in Lincolnshire and so in the mid 1600s there are quite a lot of children, well, quite a lot of COULBYs around Bourne right through to the 1700s who all descended from Robert of Westbrough.  Jane married Christopher REYNOLDS - again the name REYNOLDS figures - in 1580 at Westborough Cum Doddington, and Isabelle married Thomas CODDINGTON in 1575 at Coleby in Lincolnshire.  This was the family seat of part of the THOROLD family and I would presume it was the family seat of William who was the overseer of John COULBY's will and that he had arranged the marriage because Isabelle married Thomas CODDINGTON, and her brother William married Thomas CODDINGTON's sister, and both marriages took place in the year 1575 at Coleby.  Isabelle, who married Thomas CODDINGTON produced children and these children figure quite largely in the CODDINGTON pedigree. 

Let's come back to William the eldest son.  It's incredible the amount of things we found out about William.  He was mentioned in his grandmother, Cicely COULBY's will in 1574/5 he was a beneficiary in that.  He was the executor with Robert of his father's will despite the fact that he was probably quite young.  He was Churchwarden of Westborough in 1577 at least, and he was Chief Constable for some time of the Wapentake of Loveden, Lincolnshire and still Chief Constable at his death.  He died in 1616 having produced an enormous number of children all by the same wife and Ellen his wife survived actually him by 25 years dying in 1641 and buried at Westborough.  Grandmother Cicely made William COULBY and his sister Isabelle COULBY, the two who'd married in 1575 at Coleby, the executors of her last will and testament and ordained and made Henry JESSOP the Supervisor.  This is where I believe that John COULBY had married Isabelle JESSOP even more so.  I know we have the proof of the Isabelle JESSOP will but we also have proof in this because Cicely's daughter-in-law Isabelle was a JESSOP before she married John COULBY.  Cicely's will was mostly about bedclothes, tablecloths, carpet cloths, ewes and sheep and so on.  She presumably hadn't inherited any property at all.  She was living on part of what William had left to John.  Her will makes fascinating reading - '...great pot, one pewter doubler, my bed in the chamber, a pair of socks, a pot and a pan, a tablecloth, a basin, a mortar and six sheep...' and so on. 

But now let's go on to William COULBY.  William COULBY and Ellen née CODDINGTON had 14 children baptised at Westborough Cum Doddington, and most of them did survive.  The eldest was Anthony, baptised in 1577, then William 1579, Christopher 1580, Isabelle 1581, Richard 1582, Andrew 1584, Robert 1585, Lawrence 1586 - he's the one who went to Fulbeck and Waddington - Catherine 1589, married Robert STOWE, Peter in 1590, who we presume to have died young because there's no more trace of him, Joan buried in 1591, John 1593, Thomas baptised and buried in 1596, and Jane baptised in 1597. Let's go through them backwards.

Jane married John LEE at Westborough Cum Doddington.  She received £100 from her father’s will in 1616. She and her children were all legatees in the wills of John COULBY of Grantham and Lyon COULBY of Fulbeck and London.

John, baptised 1593 received 100 marks in his father’s will in 1616.  He made a will at Grantham in about 1638 and left to members of his family, because he’d obviously had no children.  He married Joan WITHERS in 1624 in Melton Mowbray but we know of no issue at all.

Catherine married Robert STOW.  He was probably the vicar of Westborough Cum Doddington at that time.  She was a legatee in her nephew, Lyon’s will.  Lyon’s will was very useful and her husband Robert was the witness and overseer to William COULBY’s will in 1616.

Lawrence married Isabelle MIDDLEBROOKE – 'widow of Waddington' and they had quite a few children, but no line has been traced as descending from Lawrence because he only had one son Edward, baptised in 1626 also a legatee in cousin Lyon’s will as ‘my kinsman Edward’.  He left a will in 1662 at Waddington he had two girls who married.  One married William DICKINSON at Lincoln and - sorry three girls Isabelle and then Lettice who married in COLLINGHAM and so I presume this is why the line died out.

Coming backwards again to Robert – baptised 1585 died and buried 1664 at Westbourough.  He married Ann LEE – LEE again came into it.  He got a quarter share of the Lord’s Lease from his father’s will and he was also a legatee in the will of his nephew Lyon.

Going back again we come to Andrew, baptised in 1584 he was a Churchwarden of Westborough in 1617 at least - he got a quarter of the Lord’s Lease from his father’s will in 1616 and he had tenure of his father’s land in Doddington which then became his brother Christopher’s.  He was buried in 1633 at Claypole and he did have descendants as did Robert, although Robert’s descendants seem to have stopped in 1705 and 1709 when the two daughters were born of his grandson John.  So that line died out.  Andrew’s line presumably died out too because Andrew had actually three sons and two daughters.  The son went to Arum and only had daughters.  Robert only lived for 19 years and had no issue and son William who married Ann and who went to live in Claypole, they had two sons, Andrew and John and 1669 they were buried on the same day, Andrew was 27 and John was 23.  Now whether this was a plague or influenza or a double death accident we just don’t know.  So Andrew’s line died out. Come back again to Richard.

Richard baptised 1582 buried 1646 at Westborough, also had a quarter share of the Lord’s Lease form his father William in 1616.  Married Eleanor REYNOLD – here’s REYNOLD again - had children; had three boys and a girl.  We believe one of the boys, William probably moved to the Gunnerby area of Lincolnshire but haven’t been able to trace anything that happened to him since.  He married at Westborough to Ann WILLERTON.  The other son Thomas married Ann CLIFTON, another name that figures a lot, and they had one child Thomas, baptised in Bottesford in Leicestershire and possibly others at Aslackby, but there again we haven’t been able to trace out what happened to the line.

Isabelle, baptised 1581 married Michael DAY. She married a second time to William CLARK – another name that figures. She and her second husband are in the will of John the brother of Grantham and her three children are too.

Christopher baptised 1580 later was of Grantham and London, he definitely married Ann THOROLD, probably the daughter or grand daughter of the William THOROLD who’d arranged Christopher’s parent’s marriage.  She, Ann THOROLD we know all about because we have the pedigrees of the THOROLD family.  We also have her and Christopher’s children mentioned in wills but we do not know when and where Christopher married Ann THOROLD.  The first we child we know of was born in 1611 at Westborough Cum Doddington.  There were four boys one of who died young – William – baptised at Grantham, several of the children were baptised at Grantham from 1615 onwards and as I said several were mentioned in THOROLD wills.  Markham was baptised in 1614, died aged 6 at Grantham, and there was admon of his THOROLD legacy given to his father because he had inherited from the THOROLDs.  We don’t know much else about the girls and the only other boys were Thomas, baptised 1615 at Grantham who we think started the Carlton Scroop line of COULBYs, and Anthony baptised 1612 at Westborough Cum Doddington who married Ann – she was buried at Newark but we have no idea where he married her.  After Ann was buried he married Elizabeth.  Again we’ve no idea where he married Elizabeth.  I would doubt that they were in Nottinghamshire or Lincolnshire because we’ve searched the lot, and his second wife was buried in Newark in 1677.  All of the children were baptised at Newark and they seem to have started off the lines at Stapleford in Lincolnshire where descendants were baptised by Nathanial THOROLD the curate of Stapleford – THOROLD again, and possibly the other Newark line which continued side by side for many years right through the 1800s as well with the COULBYs of Westborough.  And this confused the issue a great deal initially, but once they were all sorted out it was realised that they had all descended from Christopher who’d married Ann THOROLD.  Now I’ve only two children left – I’m going to deal with the oldest first instead of the second son, because it’s the second son from which Ted COULBY’s descended.

The eldest son was Anthony, baptised in 1577 and buried in 1637 at Aswarby in Lincs.  Married Elizabeth, she was alive in 1640 when her son Robert died and she was granted administration of his estate.  Now Anthony and Elizabeth produced children at Marston and Grantham.  I would suspect that this line died out because Robert had no issue, Anthony was buried as a baby – two Anthonys were buried as babies.  There was a John who was baptised at Grantham in 1603 of who we had no more trace and William who was baptised in 1598 at Marston married Catherine and had Thomas who was baptised in 1639 at Kirton-in-Holland and died an infant.  We’ve never ever been able to find any more children for this marriage.  It would be very interesting if we could because Kirton-in-Holland begins to figure about 40 years or so later on and so we’d like to know what the connections were.  Whether there were any COULBYs still in Kirton-in-Holland besides little Thomas who died an infant there in 1639, so that we could find out why descendants of this last brother, who I’ve not mentioned yet, finished up in Kirton-in-Holland.

But now let’s have a look at this last brother William.  Baptised 1575, named after his father, baptised at Westborough; married at Westborough in 1605 to Elizabeth BURBUTT.  Elizabeth Burbutt we know was the daughter of Edward BURBUTT a yeoman of Fulbeck.  Fulbeck lies about 6 miles as the crow flies from Westborough and Doddington.  Edward BURBUTT left a will in 1616/7 – he was a yeoman as I’ve said, he’d married Mary, she was already dead and he mentioned his daughter Elizabeth BURBUTT who had married William COULBY, so we are quite sure of that.  Just regressing a moment, Ellen CODDINGTON and Thomas CODDINGTON who I mentioned as marrying William and Isabelle.  Well, Ellen CODDINGTON was the daughter of John CODDINGTON and Catherine of Coleby.  John CODDINGTON left a will in 1581 and we have two generations before him basically through wills going through William CODDINGTON and Robert CODDINGTON all of Coleby.  Now let’s get back to William, he married at Westborough had children, William baptised in 1606, Marie baptised 1607, Edward was baptised in 1609 at Westborough, Christian baptised 1612 – a girl, Jane baptised 1613, Ellen baptised 1615, Lyon baptised 1617 obviously named after the vicar of Fulbeck who was called Lyon at that time, Alice who was buried in 1624 at Fulbeck and Elizabeth who was baptised in 1624 at Fulbeck.  The girls I think we’ll ignore, they figure in their brother’s wills and their father’s will but apart from that they don’t hold much interest for us. The people who do are the three boys – Lyon Edward and William.  Edward married Jane – he had as far as we know a boy and two girls, John Francis and Susannah.  This is from Edward’s will which he made in 1653 at Fulbeck, but when his children were born he was living at Holme just north of Newark and quite close again to he Lincolnshire border, and these three children were probably baptised at Holme – unfortunately the registers are not early enough at Holme for us to find out.  His son John probably started a line – I don’t know – or lines of COULBYs, because he had some children baptised at Stapleford in Lincolnshire, some baptised at Navenby in Lincolnshire, and some baptised at Waddington in Lincolnshire.  He married twice, once to an Ellen and once to a Martha.  Whether there were any descendants from these people we just really don’t know.  Possibly some of the 1700s COULBYs from those areas are descended from Edward.  But the interesting thing really about Edward is that he was the executor of Lyon’s will in 1650 and he received all of Lyon’s lands, his houses and so on.  He stood bond for a marriage at Lincoln in 1628 when he was ‘of Lincoln’.  He was the chief beneficiary in his grandfather Edward BURBUT’s will – that was the father of his mother in 1616/17.  The son Lyon married a widow in London – her name was either Sarah or Susannah EDWARDS and as far as we know he had no children by her, just a stepson George EDWARDS to who he left a legacy from his will in 1650.  But it’s the eldest son William who concerns us again. He died before his father 8 years before in actual fact, so let’s have a look at his father William of Fulbeck’s will.

He was buried and made the will in 1655.  He was possibly the witness to the admon of Viscount Campden in Cottesmore Rutland in 1649 which is rather strange because Cottesmore figures later on.  He was a witness to his father’s will in 1616 and of course he was the one who received all the lands in Westborough from his father William in 1616.  This William in 1665 left a lot of bequests. He mentioned Dove WILLIAMSON Mr Dove WILLIAMSON in Eltam – that’s in Notts between Grantham and Nottingham.  We found out later that this Mr Dove WILLIAMSON had at one time been the rector of Fulbeck.  He gave some money towards - 20 shillings – towards the repair of Lincoln Minster so stating ‘...this being the place where our forefathers praised the Lord...’ which again gives me the idea the original William we have in 1547 his will and George who we think was his brother or cousin with both of them leaving money to Lincoln church or Lincoln Minster, it makes me wonder if these are definitely descended from that William de COULBY who was mentioned in the Lincoln will in the 1300s.  How to go about proving it I do not know but this is a bit of evidence itself ‘..being a place where our forefathers praised the Lord...’. Something towards the church of Fulbeck; something to old people in Fulbeck and then he goes on: ‘...to William COULBY the youngest son of William COULBY of Brandon deceased, all that messuage or tenement which I bought and purchased of Thomas COULBY with the appurtenances in Westborough and Donnington and aforesaid to him and his heirs for ever...’.  The Thomas COULBY he’s bought it off I believe to be the son of his brother Richard of Westborough, the one who went and had a son at Bottesford in Leicestershire and disappeared from sight possibly to Aslackby.  So this land has been bought off Thomas COULBY his nephew and he’s bequeathing it to William COULBY the youngest son of William COULBY of Brandon (deceased) in other words, his grandson. ‘...Item, I give to the said William COULBY my grand child £20 in money..’. He also gives Edward’s son John late of Holme near Newark Notts deceased some money, and some other grandchildren.  He mentions his brother Lawrence COULBY and a great many other people.  He has a servant called Millicent CODDINGTON funnily enough.  He mentions somebody called STOWE, somebody called PARKER and he also mentions ‘...20 shillings to be paid to Mr Samuel PICKERING to be delivered unto him...’ again this figures very much so later on.  In fact we know who Samuel PICKERING is. This Samuel PICKERING actually became the vicar of Bruton which is about 2 miles or so from Fulbeck and he was the brother of William’s son William’s wife.  That sounds highly involved I know but he was William of Fulbeck’s daughter-in-law’s brother.  Now we know from a PICKERING pedigree that Joyce PICKERING was already married to William COULBY in 1634 and she was aged 19 then.  This is in the will of her grandfather John PICKERING of Gretton Northamptonshire in 1634.  We found her baptism – she was baptised in Gretton Northamptonshire the daughter of Richard PICKERING and she was baptised in 1615 which worked out quite nicely with the age 19 in 1634 but we never found a marriage for Joyce PICKERING and William COULBY.  We only have it in this pedigree or this will reference and strangely enough it’s not even in Commonwealth Period.  Just supposing that they were married in 1634 William would be 28 and Joyce would be 19.  The Commonwealth Period is usually missing 1640 ish onwards or 1645 onwards and I wonder if perhaps the marriage was in a parish where the registers aren’t extant any more.  Anyway at least we have the proof from John PICKERING’s will naming his grand daughter Joyce PICKERING as William COULBY’s wife.  Now Joyce PICKERING, very conveniently, dies at Hougham in Lincolnshire that was in 1653 six years after her husband was buried at Westborough, also at Hougham in January 1647-48 was buried her father Richard PICKERING.  Now Richard PICKERING of Gretton Northants married Bridget KING of Cottesmore Rutland, this is where the Cottesmore comes in – daughter and co-heiress of Richard KING, cleric of Cottesmore.  They had the four children, Richard, Lawrence and Joyce and Samuel.  Now Samuel married Dorothy and became the vicar of Bruton in Lincolnshire which is about 2 miles as I‘ve said from Fulbeck and I suppose he would be of an age with William COULBY who was baptised in 1606 possibly.  In any case, he was Joyce PICKERING’s brother and no doubt quite close in some respects to William COULBY her father-in-law.  Now the William COULBY Joyce PICKERING marriage took place in 1634 but we have no children for them really before 1639 except that we know from wills that there was an Elizabeth and a Mary so Elizabeth and Mary must have been born around 1634 to 1638.  Elizabeth was married in 1667 at Brant Bruton to William TOWN obviously married by her own uncle in fact she could even have been living with him because she would probably only be in her early teens when her mother died and her father was already dead and so she would perhaps be looked after by her Uncle Samuel and his wife Dorothy.  Then there was Mary, also mentioned in wills but we have no trace of where she was baptised.  I would suspect that Elizabeth and Mary were baptised wherever the William COULBY and Joyce PICKERING marriage took place in or before 1634.  So if the marriage could be found then the records of baptisms could be looked at 1634 to 1638.  Our first references to William and Joyce’s children apart from that is a man child that died before baptism son of William and Joyce buried in 1639 at Hougham in Lincolnshire.  We then have Bridget baptised in 1640 at Hougham in Lincolnshire, then George.  George was baptised in early 1643 at Newark.  This does not surprise me at all because with his father’s involvement in the Civil War it’s quite likely that William and Joyce had to move into Newark for a time to be safe.  Another child, Dorothy, was baptised in Newark in 1644, which leaves two children from whom we have no baptisms.  But the Hougham registers are missing for the pertinent period which is about 1645-1648 and there are no Bishop’s transcripts because it was a Commonwealth Period, obviously Pickering and William were not baptised in Newark, because Newark still had got some entries for the Commonwealth Period.  They must have been baptised at Hougham probably after the siege of Newark was over but as I say unfortunately the record is not there, those years are missing.

And so we’ve managed by devious means to pick up these children for William and Joyce.  We don’t know what happened to Bridget or Mary or to George.  What we do know is that Pickering was named in his father’s will.  So he was alive definitely in 1647, and some of the other children were mentioned, but William was not.  William COULBY died in August 1647.  His child William is not mentioned in his will presumably because he’s not been born.  His father-in-law Richard PICKERING from Gretton actually died in Hougham.  He made a will in January 1648.  He mentioned his daughter Joyce and her children, but he didn’t mention baby William.  Therefore I would suppose that Joyce PICKERING was only just pregnant when her William husband died in August 1647 and that her son William was born in January February March or even April of 1648.  We know for sure that William and Joyce did have this child after William had died because fortunately he was mentioned in the older William’s will in 1655, but as back-up evidence we also have him in his Uncle Lyon’s will.  Lyon of London, the citizen and vintner made his will in 1650 and here’s the absolutely convincing proof ‘...to the children of my brother Mr William COULBY deceased £5 per hundred for every £100 given them by the said William to be paid when they shall be able legally to give discharge. To William COULBY the son of my brother William who was born after the death of his father £400 at the age of 21 years – the remainder to my Executor. To Pickering COULBY son of my brother William £5 and his schooling from 9 to 16 years of age, and William COULBY to be put to a lawyer or an apprentice...’ and then he goes on to leave bequests to all the rest of the family and makes his brother Edward COULBY the executor of his will.

Three years later Edward COULBY died.  He was obviously rather worried about what his brother Lyon’s widow Susannah, as she’s named in Edward’s will, was going to do about Lyon’s bequests.  It appears from the will that Susannah had already started a Suit in Chancery.  She was presumably contesting what Lyon had given to other people and Edward was very worried about this and he makes quite a point of saying ‘...declared to be his last will and testament in the presence of...' etc, '...all these legacies being given in my brother Lyon COULBY’s will in case my sister Susannah COULBY destroy it in that suit now pending in the Chancery are all void and lost and shall not be paid...’ Signed Edward COULBY.  Very early in the will Edward takes great pains about this item, ‘..My will is that my brother William COULBY’s children have their portion duly paid them assuring myself that whatsoever I shall give to mine cannot prosper except theirs be truly paid...’.  Another item a bit later on, ‘...Item, my will is that after my sister Susan COULBY (in other words his sister-in-law) is satisfied and my brother William COULBY’s children are paid their portions and such other legacies as by my brother Lyon’s will are to be paid.  Then my will is that all the remainder of those two annuities of £200 per annum purchased of Edward PELHAM of Broxleby Esquire be divided amongst my three youngest children viz. Edward, John and Susan...’.  Ah, we didn’t know about Edward, but we’ve found out about Edward now, so presumably Edward died pretty young because 2 years later he wasn’t mentioned in Edward’s father’s will, even though his brother John was.  And so Edward really went out of his way 3 years after his brother Lyon’s death and 6 years after his brother William’s death to make quite quite sure that Lyon’s legacies were actually paid to William and Joyce COULBY’s children.  Whether or not they actually were paid we don’t know; whether it’s possible to trace that Suit in Chancery which must have been I suppose after June 1650, somewhere between June 1650 and April 1653.  There must have been a Suit to the Chancery as regards Lyon’s will by his widow Susannah.  And so we have here William and Joyce PICKERING both dying quite young, I suppose, Joyce would be only 39 when she died, William was 41 and they left several children.  We know Elizabeth was looked after by Samuel.

I wonder if William and Pickering were looked after by Samuel as well.  I wonder what connection there was between Samuel PICKERING or any of the other PICKERINGs and Kirton-in-Holland?  Or was the connection back to the older William of Fulbeck’s Anthony who we think had a grandson born in Kirton-in-Holland?  In other words a cousin of William and Joyce PICKERING was a first cousin of William was living presumably in Kirton-in-Holland in 1639.  Now were the children split?  We don’t know but Pickering obviously went to Kirton-in-Holland.  He was buried in 1682 at Kirton-in-Holland; he married in 1674 at Fulletby in Lincolnshire when he would probably be about 27/28 years of age or possibly 29.  He married a Mary DIXON and this name of figures from now on because Pickering and his wife Mary took it as the christian name for their son Dixon who was born in around 1679 possibly at Fulletby, doubtfully at Kirton-in-Holland, we haven’t found his baptism there we think he was probably baptised at Fulletby and then Pickering and Mary moved to Kirton-in-Holland but we just don’t know why.  There are obvious connections through the cousin William or the second cousin.  It could be that Samuel had connections there.  It could be that Pickering was sent immediately his mother died probably only aged about two to these people in Kirton-in-Holland.  Probably sent there by the PICKERINGs or the older COULBYs, but not forgetting that all of the male COULBYs of the William of Fulbeck’s family were now dead, he’d only got girls left.  So perhaps the PICKERINGs had a hand in it and the relations.

Anthony who had produced this line at Kirton-in-Holland was only two years older than William of Fulbeck, so probably they were very very close and so perhaps his family stepped in to take over Pickering.  But what happened to William?  Because where Pickering finished up in Kirton-in-Holland, William finished up in Claypole.  He was probably about five years old when his mother died he may have been brought up by other cousins or or great uncle's children in Claypole itself we just don’t know.  We do have another link with Kirton-in-Holland, well the area of Kirton-in-Holland.

I said that Joyce PICKERING had three brothers, Samuel who became vicar at Brant Bruton and probably brought up Elizabeth, and possibly Mary because Mary was mentioned in William of Fulbeck’s will, Richard who finished up at Scotter in Lincolnshire having married Margaret WIGGLESWORTH, and Lawrence.  Now Lawrence married twice, first of all he married someone called Mary and then he married Elizabeth BYDALLl a widow of Leek in Staffordshire.  But their children were born at Swineshead and Wrangle in Lincolnshire.  Now both of these are in the area of Kirton-in-Holland so is it possible that again one of the children was taken by a PICKERING and brought up - Namely Lawrence brought one of them up?  In any case according to the grandfather, William of Fulbeck's will, William, the son of William and Joyce, had inherited all of the land in Westborough and Doddington.  Incidentally William of Fulbeck had another grandson William - the son of his son Edward.  Now Edward in 1653 doesn’t even mention his son William. Is this another case of a baby being born after death?  Because William the grandfather at Fulbeck In 1655 leaves to ‘...William son of my son Edward late of Holme deceased my grandchild all and singular the remainder of my goods and chattels...', I don’t know what happened to this William, I don’t think he’s a red herring, I think that Ted COULBY’s William must be the William of Claypole because he was the one who inherited the lands at Westborough and Doddington and was presumably brought up in Claypole.  Looking at the Ted COULBY family tree I would suggest that little William, the son of William and Joyce, was probably brought up by William of Claypole, who was the son of Andrew, who was the brother of William of Fulbeck.  I would suspect this because he is the only one producing children in Claypole out of all the COULBYs at the time about when little William was born.  He had Andrew in 1642 and John in 1646 the two who were buried the same day in 1669, and I would suggest that he who fostered or took in as his own son little baby William. 

There is a will for William of Claypole and he left no issue at all.  He would probably believe that it wasn’t necessary to leave anything to baby William who would now be, this is 1677 so he'd be 30, because of course baby William had inherited land himself at Westborough Cum Doddington and didn’t need it.  Certainly this William, who I believe brought baby William up, was in the Claypole 1665 Hearth Tax.  In the Hearth Tax for Lincolnshire in 1665 are basically the ones we know about in Westborough, Carlton Scroop, again a line we believed to have been started by this lot, Stapleford who we know about, Bourne who we know about, Horbling that we don’t know about, Waterside that we don’t know about, the Great Hale area that we believe we know about, and Fulbeck which we do know about.  And so basically most of the Lincolnshire COULBYs in the Hearth Tax for 1665 were allied one way or another to Ted COULBY’s family.

I must go back to William of Fulbeck’s will because in his will he distinctly says ‘...I bequeath to William COULBY the eldest son of Edward COULBY late of Holme deceased my grandchild...’ now this is strange, Edward died two years before but he didn’t mention William at all.  Perhaps he knew that his father was going to give his son William the remainder of his goods and chattels and whatever and therefore didn’t believed that he needed to put anything about his son William in his will. 

But let’s get back to little baby William Born around January to April 1648, possibly brought up by his father’s cousin William of Claypole.  Obviously needed to live in that area because the lands he’d inherited from his grandfather William of Fulbeck were in the Westborough and Doddington area.  So we have the two brothers, William in Claypole, Pickering who finishes up in Kirton-in-Holland.  William of Claypole married Joan Robinson in 1678 at Claypole, she was the daughter of William ROBINSON who'd married in 1641 Anne MILLS at Claypole, he was a weaver.  The daughter Joan was baptized in 1659 at Claypole.  Now this is the first glimmerings really that we have of ordinary people - a weaver.  Basically before this even those long second cousins third cousins in the Westborough Claypole and Doddington area, the ones who’d gone to Fulbeck and so on, were off such high standing that they testified or witnessed people’s wills.  They were appointed overseers to wills of rich gentleman.  They made wills themselves leaving little precious things to legatees; leaving money for people to buy a ring, presumably a memorial ring, goodness knows; leaving little souvenirs to people, they lived in a very nice sort of way.  They were connected with the gentry, well they were gentry themselves, they were actually connected with the nobility, and yet here we have William, marrying in 1638 when he was 30 ish, to Joan ROBINSON who was the daughter of a weaver.  And yet there is a ROBINSON family crest, and it is quite possible that the ROBINSONs had fallen slightly on hard times – who knows.  Well William and Joan produced quite a lot of children at Claypole.  I suppose even though he had land in Westborough and Doddington because he’d been brought up in Claypole and married in Claypole to a Claypole girl, he continued and had the children baptized at Claypole.  Out of thirteen children not many survived, Eleanor, Joanne, Andrew, John, Richard, and Anne and Elizabeth died fairly young some in their teens some as babies, and none of them left any issue.  There were twins Rebecca and Rachel baptized in 1695, there’s no more sign of them at all I can only think that they were buried somewhere but that it’s been omitted or spoiled in the registers.  John was baptized in 1693 buried in 1715 a bachelor of Claypole, Mary was baptized in 1691 she was buried in her twenties at Newark.  Of Thomas baptized 1686, and Anthony baptized 1683, we have no more trace at all.  Did they emigrate?  There were COULBYs that went overseas.  But out of all thirteen children the only trace we have is of the eldest, baptized in 1679 the year after William and Joan ROBINSON’s marriage.  William - he was buried in 1731 at Westborough Cum Doddington. He married Mary LEE 1703 at Westborough Cum Doddington.   To Mary LEE - now Mary LEE was actually his relation, I wonder if they knew it!  William COULBY who married Mary LEE had of course a great grandfather William COULBY of Fulbeck.  Mary LEE was descended from that great grandfather’s sister, Jane COULBY who married John LEE in 1624 at Westborough Cum Doddington.  That was her grandmother, and so William Colby and Mary LEE were something like second cousins once removed.  Mary LEE was baptized in 1674 the daughter of Robert LEE who’d married Catherine ELLIS in 1659 at Long Bennington, and of course Robert LEE was the son of John LEE yeoman who married Jane COULBY in 1624 at Westborough Cum Doddington.  And so I’m fairly sure you have second cousins once removed.  Let’s just leave William and Joan ROBINSON for a while having their thirteen children at Claypole and presumably William was still farming his bit of land in Westborough Cum Doddington and let’s go back to Pickering.

In about 1679 Pickering and Mary Dixon who’d married in 1674 at Fulletby in Lincolnshire, had a son called Dixon.  We know of no other children to them at all, just Dixon.  About 1679 he went to Oxford in 1696 took a B.A. in 1700 and an M.A. in 1703.  He became a doctor at Stamford; he died in 1756 and was buried at Kirton-in-Holland presumably still of Stamford however, perhaps he kept houses in both places.  He married an Elizabeth and we haven’t got the marriage although we know she was born in about 1680.  Dixon and Elizabeth had one son Dixon.  He was born about 1711, was a doctor of medicine of Stamford and died at the age of 22 in 1733, buried at Kirton-in-Holland.  He studied at Oxford from 1730 and he left no issue as far as we know he never married even.  In Monson's Church Notes Lincolnshire [Monson, Lord, Lincolnshire Church Notes made by William John Monson F.S.A 1828-40, Lincoln Record Soc. 31 (Lincoln, 1936)] he made rather an error when he came to Pickering and Dixon COULBY, in fact a very nasty error which led us astray for some time.  Pickering COULBY, Gent according to Monson died on the 5^th October 1682.  According to also to Monson, his wife Maria, that’s obviously Mary DIXON, died in 1695.  What we couldn’t understand was that in 1695, Pickering COULBY, a Pickering COULBY of some description, took great pains, just before then, or just before he made his will, to finish an Entail.  That is to say, to stop the right of the sons to inherit.  This was done according to what he wrote, for his son Dixon.  Now Pickering COULBY couldn’t have done that in 1690s if he’d been buried in 1682.  But when Ted COULBY and I checked on the two memorials, Monson had made the grave error of swapping the two around.  In actual fact, on the memorials, Pickering COULBY died in 1695 and his wife Mary née Dixon died in 1682.  So we have Pickering COULBY in the early 1690s trying to finish an Entail.  I should also point out that when he married Mary DIXON, Pickering COULBY made over some lands in Westborough and Doddington to his mother-in-law, Mary DIXON’s mother, as a sort of part of the marriage contract so those lands were these?  Were they Pickering’s or William’s, they must have been Pickering’s and I suppose he must have inherited them from William who married Joyce.  In William’s will of course Pickering was the main beneficiary, only being a year or two old when his father died.  Now in the early 1690s, Pickering’s son Dixon was in his early to mid teens, he obviously showed promise he was the only child; the only surviving child at any rate.  I wonder if Pickering COULBY finished the Entail in order that he might sell the lands and use the money for Dixon’s education, because it cost quite a bit to send somebody to Oxford even in those days, and Dixon of course, mid teens, he went to Oxford in 1696. That was the year after his father died.  Did his farther realized that he wasn’t going to survive very long and did he perhaps decide that as Dixon showed the promise of a good mind and of scholarship he would prefer the money for his education?  I would suspect so, and so Pickering died and his wife died and Dixon, aged about 16 when his father died, only three when his mother died, went to Oxford the year after his father died and became a doctor of Stamford - Doctor of medicine - we don’t know.  Definitely his son Dixon was a doctor of medicine because he was an M.D. of Stamford.

Let’s get back in the meantime to little baby William, Pickering’s brother.  As I said he produced one son actually who’d had any issue that we know of, who would be first cousin to the Dixon who went off to Oxford in 1696.  Strangely enough, these two cousins were born in the same year, because William COULBY the son of William and Joan ROBINSON, was baptized in 1679 at Claypole.  William COULBY who married Mary LEE as I have said, his second cousin once removed had several children five boys one girl, from 1704 to 1712 all baptized at Westborough Cum Doddington where of course he got married.  But I do wonder whether perhaps he’d move there or was already living there on the land he’d inherited from his father in Westborough Cum Doddington and that it was easier to have the children baptized back at Westborough again.  I should explain here that Doddington church is now falling down and that it was the register’s at Westborough that everything was entered into in any case.  As I said he had five sons and one daughter. William, married at Balderton and then married at Westborough. He had several children and most of them finished up in Newark one way or another or at least the issue did. John married Rebecca when to Boston in Lincolnshire.  Dixon we’ll leave for a moment. Robert was buried in 1712 don’t know how old he was, no issue too young.  Mary only lived for a year. Robert was buried in 1731, he was then baptised in 1705 he was a bachelor when he died. So we have William produces children who finish up in Newark, John who goes off to Boston in Lincolnshire and that just leaves Dixon.

Dixon after William’s cousin of course (spelled Dixyne, and also Dixon and Dickson).  He was baptized in 1710 at Westborough Cum Doddington.  He was buried at Westborough Cum Doddington in 1777 age 66 but he was 'of Caythorpe' when he was buried at Westborough Cum Doddington.  I should point out here that around the mid to late 1600s we’d now found some COULBYs in Somerset.  Whether they are connected with these people or not we have no idea.

Let’s get back to Mary JACKSON who married Dixon in 1738 at Westborough.  She was baptized in 1713 at Westborough, the daughter of William JACKSON and Mary.  William JACKSON had married Mary South in 1708 at Leasingham in Lincolnshire and obviously moved in to Westborough, or else he moved out to get married and then moved back in.  She was buried in 1768 at Westborough aged 54 years.

Now in Dixyne COULBY and Mary JACKSON who were married in 1738 we are talking about the grandson and his wife of William COULBY the little baby.  When you bear in mind that baby William was left by his uncle Lyon £400, and lands in Westborough and Doddington by his grandfather William of Fulbeck ,and that Edward, his uncle, tried to ensure that he got the £400 from Lyon, it seems very strange that Dixyne COULBY and Mary JACKSON’s son Dixon was a baker.  What happened to the land and to the money?  I’ve got a few thoughts on this I wonder if Susannah COULBY widow of Lyon won her case in court before she died?  She was buried actually in the late 1650s at Fulbeck as far as we know.  So she didn’t have too long to contest a husband’s will.  But did baby William ever get that £400?  He must have got the land I would presume from his grandfather at Fulbeck, because there was no way that he couldn’t get that.  But when you consider this was just '...a messuage or tenement with the appurtenances...' and that Westborough and Doddington were really just one parish, then it might not have been very much at all.  And if he didn’t get the £400 from uncle Lyon or whatever, because of his aunt Susannah contesting the will and he certainly didn’t inherit as far as we know from William of Claypole who might have brought him up, then perhaps it just got, not frittered away, but eaten away.  And don’t forget that around the early 1700s the Enclosure Land came in. Supposing he lost quite a lot of his land then?

But now let’s get back, right back to 1616.  In 1616, William of Westborough left all of the lands in Westborough to his son William, later of Fullbeck, and those lands were to William and his heirs for ever.  I'll quote it '...all lands in Westborough to him and heirs males for ever...'.  Now then, to whom did William leave the lands in Westborough?  He left them to William, baby William the son of William some of them.  Now when I talk about the lands at Westborough Cum Doddington I’m not talking about the lands that William left to baby William the son of his son William.  Because it appears to me that William of Fulbeck bought that messuage or tenement deliberately off of Thomas COULBY, in order to leave it to baby William who’d not been left anything in his father’s will because his father didn’t know of his coming existence.  When you read William of Fulbeck’s will, you see that he left something to every male descendant except for Pickering.  Pickering was the son of his eldest son. Pickering as far as we know was the eldest surviving son of the eldest son.  Therefore if the land was already entailed from William of Westborough in 1616 will through William of Fulbeck 1655 will, who received all of his father’s lands in Westborough. Then surely automatically it would go to Pickering COULBY, regardless of the fact that Pickering went off to Kirton-in-Holland. And we know that Pickering did inherited from someone and it wasn’t from his father William.  Massive lands in Westborough Cum Doddington, albeit it was through his father William, because his father William had deceased before grandfather William of Fulbeck.  And so William, the baby, finishes up with a small messuage, hopefully £400 which he might not get from Uncle Lyon.  But Pickering, he finishes up with whatever his father leaves him in his will and also inherits the bulk of the Westborough Cum Doddington lands, and it was these that he Entailed, either to send his son Dixon to Oxford help pay it, or because living in Kirton-in-Holland that area, he didn’t want his lands in Westborough Cum Doddington.  He was a gentleman of Stamford or of Kirton-in-Holland.  His son was going to be a gentleman of Stamford.  He did not want his son to be bothered with lands in Westborough Cum Doddington.  How he managed to finish that Entail we just don’t know, although we have plenty of references to the breaking of it.  When you consider that Pickering’s son had no issue left when he died, his son Dixon having died, then consider the rightful heir was, or who the rightful heirs were, to all the COULBY lands at Westborough Cum Doddington.   Obviously baby William first of all, but bear in mind that if the entail hadn’t been broken, that it would still have been there when the first Dixon of Kirton-in-Holland and Stamford died in 1756.  At that time, in 1756 there were two, well three, heirs possibly to the lands.  They were all the children of William, the son of baby, William and Mary LEE, all baptized at Westborough.  William was still alive, he wasn’t buried till 1782, in 1756 he was 52.  Dixon was still alive in 1756 he was 46.  We’re not sure about John being still alive who went off to Boston in Lincolnshire, because the last child we have of John was baptized in 1737.  But we’ve definitely got two heirs to the property.  Those two heirs did not get the property because the entail had been broken.  Did Dixon COULBY feel guilty about this when he made his will in 1756?  Was this why he wished the eldest son of both of those boys, his cousin’s sons, to be apprenticed - the 7 year old Dixon, son of Dixon and the 11 year old William, son of William to be apprenticed and to collect a sum of money at the age of 21 years?  It took a long time to sort out Dixon COULBYs will.  He’d left a lot of bequests to a lot of people, the bulk of his estate went to a woman we’ve never heard of called Mary.  Now whether she was related to him on his wife Elizabeth’s side we do not know but she was the main beneficiary.  The accounts for the administration of this estate took many years because there were such as young Dixon and young William who weren’t 21 and had to wait until they were 21 to get their money.  In the accounts William, son of William did not receive the money.  He died just before his twenty first birthday and was buried in 1766 at Westborough.  Dixon, the son of Dixon was still alive.  His apprenticeship must have been as a baker for he is described as such on a couple of occasions in the Westborough registers.  Maybe all that was left now of the original inheritance and messuage from this Dixon’s great grandfather the baby William, or maybe there was nothing left, or maybe all that was left was the cottage in which they lived we just don’t know at this stage.

As usual in these days, a lot of Dixon’s children died, young babies.  Dixon married Hannah RIMINGTON in 1772 at Long Bennington.  She almost certainly was the Anna RIMINGTON, daughter to John and Anna, baptised in 1750 at Long Bennington.  John had married Anna LANE in 1744 at Long Bennington.  Dixon and Hannah or Anna had several children, some of them moved to to Beckingham and Stubton.  Thomas and William started lines there, and they continued right  through to the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds there was still COULBYs at Beckingham then.  Just one son married in Long Bennington.  Presumably Dixon moved to Long Bennington because he’d married Hannah of Long Bennington - there may have been some reason.  All of the children of were baptized at Long Bennington as far as we know.  But the son John, who’s the only one we’re interested in really – oh sorry we there was another son - Dixon again he was a Long Bennington and later of Newark and we think had connections with Lincoln and then Newark again, and we’ve just the one son John marrying in 1795 at Long Bennington - John was baptised in 1773.  He married Mary TAYLOR in 1795 at Long Bennington.  They had three sons baptized at Long Bennington, John in 1795, William in 1797, Dixon in 1799.  For a long time we had great difficulty with this, because we knew we were looking for a William going back from Ted COULBY who was baptized or born in about 1797, and when we eventually found this William in a census he gave his birthplace Ancaster or Wilfsord.  There was no William COULBY baptised at Ancaster or Wilsford.  Ancaster and Wilsford I should point out are parishes which meet in the middle of, and I’m not sure which it is, Wilsford or Ancaster – but people on one side of the street are in one parish and people on the other side of the street are in the other parish.  This William was quite sure he’d been born in Ancaster.  So Ancaster registers were gone through.  Now there were some children born in Ancaster yes - there was a James baptized in Ancaster in 1801, there was a Thomas baptised in Ancaster in 1803 there was another Thomas baptised in 1806 at Ancaster, there was a Mary COULBY buried In 1803 at Ancaster and then we realize what had happened.  William thought he was born in Ancaster or Wilsford, because when his father moved there it must have been about 1800.  They had John 1795 at Long Bennington, William 1797, Dixon 1799.  Then they moved to Ancaster and had James the next one in 1801 at Ancaster.  Then John’s wife Mary TAYLOR died in 1803 and John remarried.  So when William moved to Ancaster and Wilsford area, he was actually three years old or less and so he was brought up there and he was convinced that he was born there which is a very very natural mistake because if you’ve lived in a place since the age of three and no one has told you any different you’d think you were born there.

John remarried in 1803 at Ancaster to Elizabeth PAGE. Another son Thomas was born of this marriage in 1806.  We do not know what happened to the last three sons - well obviously the first died - but we don’t know what happened to James of 1801 and Thomas of 1806.  We know that Dixon COULBY baptized 1799 returned to Long Bennington and Newark area, and we also know that John baptized 1795 had issue again Newark.  We also know that John COULBY himself who’d married Mary TAYLOR and then Elizabeth PAGE was actually buried ‘of Newark’ at Long Bennington.  Now his wife had been buried in 1838 - his second wife – at Ancaster, but he was buried at Long Bennington on the 14^th October 1838 aged 67 years – which is about a year or two out actually but who was to a year or two in those days? - and it distinctly says in Long Bennington registers ‘of Newark’.  Perhaps he was staying with his son John who had moved to Newark or his son Dixon who’d moved to Newark and they were looking after him in his grief from his wife dying, and he died soon after.

But I’ll go back to John’s first wife Mary TAYLOR.  We found her baptism; she was the illegitimate daughter to Michael CASTLETINE or CASTLEDINE and Elizabeth TAYLOR.  She was baptized in 1777 at Long Bennington.  It looks very much from her death that she died during the birth, or shortly after the birth of her last child the first Thomas.

I suppose really it was the next generation that we had the most trouble with.  William, who thought he was born at Wilsford or Ancaster, moved around a lot.  Ted COULBY managed to trace back through his father and his father’s father, to a John COULBY spelled 'COULBY' the same as Ted, who, when found in a census said that he was born Aceby.  Now they’re an awful lot of places in Lincolnshire that sound or look like Aceby. There is an Aceby, there’s an Aisby there’s a Haisby, and there are several other names that are pronounced 'Aceby' even though they are spelled differently like Aswardby I believe is pronounced 'Aceby', and probably another one pronounced Ashfordby and I believe that that is also alliteration-wise pronounce something like 'Aishby' or 'Aceby' and so all the possible derivations of Aceby were looked at for this John born about 1825.  Ted COULBY combed the 1851/61/71 censuses for Lincolnshire.  He wanted to see if he could find is John in a different census.  Unfortunately he couldn’t.  He wanted to find John as a baby with his parents - he couldn't.  We found a John who we thought might be the right one.  He was born in the area of Haisby, and we thought well this could be it, but on further investigation he could not have been.  And so Ted COULBY scoured and scoured and scoured the censuses of Lincolnshire - all over Lincolnshire, because I’m afraid little William who thought he was born at Ancaster or Wilsford, had gone a long long way across Lincolnshire by the time we found him and his wife and his children.

Eventually after a long long search, Ted COULBY found the following family in a place called Ashby Puerureom in Lincolnshire.  He’d already found this family later in 1851, a William who believed he was born in Wilsford or Ancaster and his wife.  Well we know who he was of course now, but we didn’t then, and of course then in 1851, he didn’t have John living with him, and this put us off completely.  Anyway at Ashby Puerureom in 1841, all of them having been born in the county of Lincolnshire were found the following:  William 'COULBY' 40, agricultural labourer, Elizabeth 45 presumably his wife, Hanna daughter aged 8, Mark his son aged 5, Charlotte aged 3, and Eliza aged 6 months.  So the next step was to go to Ashby Puerureom  registers, and these were found, Charlotte the daughter of William and Elizabeth of Ashby Puerureom, labourer, baptised 1821 buried 1821 George, son of the same baptised 1824, John spelled 'COBY' son of William and Elizabeth of Ashby Puerureom, labourer, baptised 1825 and we realized we’d found him at last!  Now when you start to look at William who thought he was born at Ancaster and Wilsford, that’s the only way I can really refer to him, apart from being ‘ag lab’, it was remarkable what we actually gathered about him and not realized.  His birth in Long Bennington of course we’d already got, but by this time we’d already collected the references at Ancaser of his father’s second marriage and his other brothers who were born in Ancaster; of his mother’s death in Ancaster.  We’d already searched such places as Helpringham and Heckington, all the Fen areas, because this William couldn’t be found particularly, but a lot of little bits and pieces started to fall in place.  In Hagworthingham registers we eventually found quite a lot of the other children, Dixon in 1828, Hanna in 1833, Martha 1835, William 1837, and Eliza in 1841.  But, already by sheer absolute fortune the marriage of William to Elizabeth had been picked up.  In the registers of Carlton Scroop which is a place as the crow flies, in between Grantham and Newark, and also between Grantham and Lincoln, and pretty close to Ancaster and Wilsford a William 'COBY' married Elizabeth Hill - he was nearly 22 years old when he married Elizabeth she was 6 years older than William. This is borne out by the 1841 census you’ll notice, and she was ‘of Carlton Scroop’ where the marriage took place on the 29^th March 1819.  William was also of that parish at the time of the marriage and was probably working there, and one of the witnesses at the wedding was a John, either William’s brother or his father.  Both of them signed with a cross, so they couldn’t write their own names and it was written down as 'COBY'.  But when you consider some of the Lincolnshire dialect it’s not really surprising.  Eventually most of the children of William and Elizabeth née Hill were traced.  We know there was a James, we have him in the census, and we know that he was their son that we’re not sure where or when he was baptized, he was probably the oldest child baptized in 1819 to 1820.  Then of course we have Charlotte and George both baptized in Ashby Puerureom, and John baptized at Ashby Puerureom.  And then most of the others at Hagworthingham but funnily enough in between there’s a Charles baptised in 1830 in Midville.  And say you have the family moving from Carlton Scroop to somewhere, maybe James was born at Carlton Scroop, we’ve not picked that baptism up yet.  Then to Ashby Puerureom then to Hagworthingham, then to Midville then back to Hagworthingham where presumably they stopped having children with little Elisa born in 1841, and presumably that was the last child as Elizabeth was now 45 or so years old - may have been slightly older.  In 1851, Williams’s wife Elizabeth née HILL said that she was born at Sleaford, but when we found her in Wilsford would you believe in 1871 a widow, she said she was born at Wilsford.  So a search was made of the I.G.I. and the Mormon microfiche again, this time for Elizabeth Hill. Several probables came up, but I would actually suggested Elizabeth HILL was the daughter of George HILL and Hannah, baptized at West Halton on the 8^th May 1793, and this would put her nicely as 4 or 5 years older than William.  It would also explain why suddenly for the first time in all this COULBY tree, I believe it’s the first time, we get a George.  For William and Elizabeth’s third child was named George baptized in 1824 at Ashby Puerureom, and I would definitely say that this points to that baptism being hers, especially when you consider that the first child of the marriage James, was presumably named after William COULBY’s brother James who was baptized in 1801 at Ancaster.  And we have no James Hills producing an Elizabeth anyway, but I do realize the IGI is not faultless and that it doesn’t cover all parishes.  But after searching around in the Sleaford area it seems to me that this is the one.  Again it’s possibly that Elizabeth thought she was born in Sleaford or Wilsford and naturally came to that area when she was tiny.  What Ted really needs to do is check if a George and Hannah were around in Carlton Scroop or in Wilsford or in Sleaford after the 1793, and then he will know from that, or possibly any other children for them in Wilsford or Sleaford areas, and then he’ll be able to connect the two

John COULBY, the elusive one, who was baptized in 1825, didn’t marry until he was 35.  He married at Wilsford, a girl of Wilsford but he was of Toynton St Peters.  She was named Sarah Ann PALMER, her father was John PALMER, a farmer, who we actually believed to be from the Great Ponton area near Grantham and his father was William COULBY labourer, his time everything was spelled correctly ‘COULBY’.  There was a child of the marriage the following year William Palmer COULBY spelled slightly peculiarly this time but still with the ‘COU’ at the beginning.  Father agricultural labourer, and there was a daughter Sarah Palmer COULBY who died in 1863 at Lincoln, so they'd moved again.  Another daughter Olive Elizabeth COULBY was born on the 7^th August, 1864 at Lincoln.  John COULBY himself died at the age of 40 in June 1865 – 80 Newland Street Lincoln of TB.  He was a labourer at an Iron Foundry, and his wife, as far as we know remarried.  The children that survived William Palmer and his sister Olive Elizabeth were brought up in Great Ponton by their mother’s relations.  And so I shall now leave the end of the story to Ted COULBY, because he knows far far more than me.  He has photographs of some of the people I’ve just been talking about; he has proof of their existence if you like, which I do not have, and he can finish the story off right through to himself.  And if my reckoning up is correct through William COULBY of Westborough, John of Westborough, William of Westborough, William of Fulbeck, William of Brandon, but buried at Westborough, little baby William who was born after his father died, William his son who was baptized at Claypole but married at Westborough, Dixon his son who was actually of Caythorpe when he died. Caythorpe – Wilsford. Dixon, his son the baker, the one whose apprenticeship was paid for by the rich Dixon COULBY who he was namesake for.  John, who married twice and led us a merry dance by having his children in various places; William his son who led us an even worse dance by having his children in several more places.  John, who married Sarah Ann PALMER of Wilsford; their son William Palmer; his son and then Ted COULBY and Ted COULBY’s children of course and now Ted COULBY’s grandchildren I believe make 17 generations.

I’ll just add a few more points which are quite humorous in a way some of them.  I notice we have a printed pedigree, obviously from one of the visitations, of COULBY of Boston. It says (blank) COULBY married Mary daughter of (blank), and it says under the COULBY ‘probably of the same family as Dixon COULBY of Kirton’ and then goes on with all the children produced actually dying out I believe, with women marrying and no male line coming through.  But this is the funny thing - ‘probably of the same family as Dixon COULBY of Kirton’ - as far as I can see this COULBY who was possibly William, baptized at Bourne in 1675, or perhaps John or William of Bourne again, this family which then continued into the Boston area, well it would be whoever it was three times great grandfather John COULBY of Westborough who was buried in 1557, who was also the great times three grandfather of Dixon COULBY who died in 1756 at Kirton and buried at Kirton-in-Holland.  And if you go through that I think you finish up with something like exactly fourth cousins.  Since Ted has been doing this, he seems to have collected, in my opinion, about 2/3 of the COULBY references that are to be connected, which ain’t bad going by any means. 

Some of the later wills are interesting and I suppose it’s because we can’t say exactly who they are.  There’s a Dixon COULBY left a will in 1864 late of Long Bennington – cottager – I wonder if he’d still got the family cottage?  There’s William Crampton COULBY, late of Nottingham in the county of Nottingham deceased, who died in 1888.  There’s Ann COULBY of Nottingham, 1889.  Some of them had gone back from the rags to the riches.  William Crampton COULBY in 1888 left over £3000, Ann COULBY of Nottingham left £558, Robert COULBY of Ordsall in 1895 left £111.  Another Dixon COULBY died in 1898 in Nottingham, Alfreton Road – he’d married a Maria; he left £181.  And there was a Richard COULBY of Crampton House, Nottingham, lace manufacturer, must be I would think, the son or brother of William Crampton COULBY because he was possibly – sorry he IS the brother and sole executor.

Lucy COULBY of Brant Bruton in 1903 over £2000. Jane COULBY of Northampton, effects granted to her husband James – she only left £207.  Maria COULBY of Nottingham again 1905, died at Mablethorpe in Lincolnshire, over £2000.  Probate was granted to Dixon Samuel COULBY plasterer – see the Dixon comes through right through to the 1900s.  Mary COULBY of Newark on Trent widow, died 1907 £329, probate was granted to a Henry Bramner, whoever he may have been – and so on.  The latest one we have Albert Martin COULBY, late of Middle Furlong Road, Nottingham, died 1913 over £1600 plus, probate to his widow Fanny, and then of course Lucy COULBY of Brant Bruton – her will was inspected and we know where she came from actually – I think I’ve already described the ones who went off to Beckingham and Brant Bruton area.

And so the COULBYs are still going very very strong it would seem.  I sometimes wonder if Ted’s ever thought of looking in EVERY telephone directory for England – just England for now, and seeing how many COULBYs he can find in either of the spellings of course.  And just how many of them do connect through to those of Westborough Cum Doddington and Claypole and even those of Wilsford and Ashby Puerorum, because as far as I know Ted’s only found a few relations, and they’re the ones who are still in Balderton.  So where are all the others?  When you think right back to the William of Loveden – the Chief Constable, who made his will in 1616 and all of those children he left; all of those sons all producing sons and he’d got a brother Robert too who also produced, where are all these descendants?  It sometimes seems to me that there were more of these COULBYs in the 15/16/17/1800s than there probably are now.  Or would it be a good idea to have a little look in the telephone directories and see if you can find how many there are on the telephone at any rate?  And would it be a good idea if you don’t come up with too many to photostat a little letter and say 'any connection with me?' Because it would be very nice for them to get this beautiful family tree, I don’t mean the great big ones either, because I know they cost an awful lot of money.  I just mean, you know, if they could write back and say well, ‘I know my grand dad was the son of Robert and he come from Long Bennington’ or something like that, and then you’d be able to give them a clue.  I think it would be nice.  Mind you, they might be very surprised to find out how far the family fell really.  Although, let’s be honest, they might have become poor agricultural labourers, but not many of them HAD to get married and there’s not one illegitimate in the whole of this tree.  Maybe one or two hit the altar not long before, but it’s a pedigree to be proud of I’m quite sure, and I really do think it could be taken further.  Perhaps money would have to be spent, probably at the College of Arms – they should have that William de COULBY though, who was mentioned in a Lincoln will in the 1300s.  And I would have thought that they might have some visitations hanging around somewhere for the name COULBY, in fact as Pickering COULBY and his son Dixon and his son Dixon had a coat of arms, where did they get it from?  Because Pickering’s right to arms must have come through his father, and his, from his father and so on. And so, why had they the right to this coat of arms?  Had William, Pickering’s brother, the same right? Yes of course he had, he was a COULBY.  You know I reckon, with Pickering’s line dying out and with quite a lot of the other lines dying out, that it could be that Mr Edward Leslie COULBY is the rightful heir to the COULBY coat of arms.  It is rather a nice thing.  Maybe if Mr Edward Leslie COULBY comes up on pools, or something like that he will pursue it.  Because apart from that, surely there’s something somewhere in the 13 and 1400’s to connect with that William COULBY of Westborough who left his will in 1547 and must surely have been born around the turn of the 1400 to 1500s, because when he died in 1547, his son John was probably already married, because son John had produced several children by the time he died.  And you can more or less date John’s wedding to around 1550 at the very latest.  And so you could almost date Wlliam COULBY’s birth to circa 1500.  If you could just find something on William de COULBY of the 1300s coming through and connecting with Geroge of Waddington, I feel that this could go even further back given the right sources.  I always understood that the most difficult part was to actually get back that far, but if you could get back to about 1500 with various resources you could pursue it even further.  Let’s face it, some people really have traced their lines back to William the Conqueror’s lot and around there, so why not the COULBYs?   And were these of Lincolnshire connected with those of Norfolk?  When was the village of Coleby in Norfolk named Coleby? Were the Somerset COULBYs and the Hampshire COULBYs all connected with this lot and when?

I do have a story about one of my ancestors, Henry KELLAND, who was married in Taunton at the end of the 1700s.  The story is that all KELLANDs in the whole of England are descended from 3 brothers – well two of them actually because one didn’t have any children.  And these 3 KELLAND brothers in the very beginning of the 1500s were Scotsmen who entertained Henry VIII at their home in Scotland so lavishly that Henry VIII was thrilled to bits and gave them lands.  These lands were all in Devon, they were lands from the monasteries that had been dissolved recently by Henry VIII and the three KELLAND brothers settled there.  Now if I ever get my KELLANDs back to one of these 3 brothers who settled in Devon in the early 1500s I would hope to get back even further if this story were true.  Because they would presumably be of gentry and in Scotland I would hope to find reference to the name in the 1500s and before.

So I think that perhaps there are several things Ted needs to do. In the first place I think there are one or two bits and pieces that aren’t really covered yet.

Elizabeth HILL’s baptism for example needs verifying. Her parentage needs verifying.  I think that perhaps wills should be looked at even more – not just York PCC but everywhere that Ted can find a will should be looked at. 

And then, without noting any COULBYs at all, perhaps it would be a good idea to collect every source of information that you can find for the 1400s and early 1500s and before, so that you could have a good long check list, okay, so I know you don’t read Latin, but you ferret around – see if you could find any more little bits and pieces about these people.  They’ve really been brought to life to a certain extent – perhaps you could bring them even more to life?  And perhaps you could extend further backwards. Perhaps by contacting people named Couby you could extend further forwards.  Perhaps with a bit of ferreting around you might find that Anthony marriage to Elizabeth – remember?  Produced children at Marston and Grantham from 1598 onwards and we never did find that marriage, or maybe it was too early, maybe that register’s not extant.

And also the marriage of Ann THOROLD to Christopher, that’s never been found. They must have married before 1611, but we’ve no idea where.  Have we exhausted London?  Have we exhausted everywhere around Grantham?  Have we exhausted all the places where the THOROLDs lived?  Because she just might have got married there and had that first child Helen there.  Well, we think Helen might be the first child, and that would be consistent with them having married at the same parish as the first child was baptised at, as was the habit in those days.

Well I hope this was exactly just what you wanted Ted.  If not then let me know and I’ll se if there’s anything else I can fill you in on.  I must apologise for a few little bits and pieces that are missing.  I haven’t got William’s will of 1647, gent of Brandon, and haven’t got anything at all about Pickering, his will and all the documents to do with the entail, so I’ve had to remember all of that.