Tuesday, 19 February 2013



One of the problems you may come across in consulting other records of the early family is that authorities in 18th. and 19th. centuries didn't have access, given poor communications, to all the research data we have today, so they conjectured.

One researcher leaves out completely one generation in the Cornish line. Another says that the line didn't start with Nicholas Boterel but with a man called Hamo or Hamon. Was William Boterel I the son of Nicholas or of Hamo?

1. William Boterel I was born in 1085.
2. If Hamo were his father, he would have to have been born around 1065 at the earliest. But Hamo is found in London and Lincoln in 1155. This would make him ninety. In those days, you didn't travel around at ninety - - in fact you probably wouldn't even get to ninety.
3. There is no firm indication of where Hamo came from. Who was he? I've tried to make an educated guess.
4. A charter of King Henry I definitely states that William was the son of Nicholas.
5. Another authority claims that Hamo was the progenitor of the Shropshire line. There is no proof whatever of this, and the Cornish line got estates in Shropshire by marriage.

An associated web site - http://www.bottrillfamilyhistory.com - has the research which addresses this problem. Unless you're serious about getting into the research details, just take a quick look and then read the book there - 'The king's toads' - instead.

No comments:

Post a Comment