Many thanks, Carole, for your “wake-up call”.
It is well over ten years since I joined forces with my late friend, Kyle VanLandingham, in trying to understand the various Blount lines. Way back then I read that when the lands of the imprisoned Sir Walter Blount were taken over by the Parliamentarians, that the family were fortunate to have them obtained by his “father-in-law, George Blount, Cromwell’s Chief Baron of the Exchequer”. There are at least two errors there.
George Blount, Sir Walter’s father-in-law died in 1616, almost thirty years earlier.
So I switched my thinking (unsupported) to the error being that it was George, son of George, and therefore brother-in-law of Sir Walter, who had the care of Sir Walter’s lands. The “Baron of the Exchequer” bit stayed in my thinking.
What I see now, thanks to all the on-line information and Malcolm Atkins' two books on Worcestershire in the Civil War (sitting on the shelf above my computer as I type … I have no excuse for not picking this up earlier) that it was JOHN WYLDE, son of George (d. 1616) and Frances Huddleston, who was the Baron of the Exchequer for Cromwell.
But was he the correct brother-in-law of Sir Walter Blount who had the care of the lands of Sir Walter? OR WAS IT GEORGE?
More digging required.
Thanks for sorting me out. My notes make a great more sense now. I have enjoyed your postings on RootsChat, Carole: Good luck! Have fun! And Thanks.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|