On the  ORIGINS  of   The  CHURCHILL  FAMILY 

and

An  ACCOUNT  of  ONE  FAMOUS  MEMBER  of  it.

<

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

       When re-visiting a local National Trust property near York (England) recently  (Beningborough Hall), my wife and I decided to take a look at the Hall itself this time - rather than just the Walled Garden  with its interesting collection of Old Fruit Trees.  The previous owners (the Bourchier family) haven’t lived  in this 3000 acre estate for  years – since it housed Air Force personnel during World War II.  Just off the impressive entrance foyer, was a small room devoted to the sale of Used Books (with profits to the Trust).  It included a few more serious or academic choices than typical of such charity shops and I noticed a two Volume set on the ‘Life of the Duke of Marlborough’ written by his notable  descendant Sir Winston Churchill - in the early’30s.  As I knew little about the period of English history concerned, and it was rather reasonable in price, I happily bought it.  The following is my condensed account of a major part of that earlier Churchill’s life  - to which has been added a deeper analysis of   his  family’s genealogy from ca 1000 to 1800 -– to augment that provided in the book itself or, indeed, as seems  available, at least in a reasonably valid form, more generally.

             As with most biographies, the book begins (conveniently for our interests)  with an account of the Churchill family’s then recent history and background.  Whilst I’d pursued the genealogy of several families as a hobby some years ago, this was not my main motivation in acquiring  the present book.  However, I appreciated it might provide interesting insight into some common characteristics of  two  remarkable members of that one family, albeit living 250 years apart.  I’d  read a book some years ago by our more contemporary Churchill in which  he  touched briefly on his family’s origins –  being, in the border area of Dorset and Devon, in south-west England.  I’d gained an impression of  solid English Yeoman stock who had probably taken their surname (or had been accorded such) by virtue of the earlier family’s residence near some  church situated on a noteworthy local hill  - around  1300, say, when  surnames were first evolving.  From there, in any case, they had seemingly spread and prospered  further afield -  being so identified henceforth.  Belief in such an  origin would however ultimately prove quite mistaken.

      Reading the present biography’s Preface renewed my awareness that Churchill’s prose has been much praised, and appropriately so.   In it, he essentially sets out the main facts on which the glowing reputation of his illustrious Ducal ancestor, John Churchill,  was based and on which the author’s obvious worship of him was understandably founded.  There had however been many earlier biographers of ‘Marlborough’ who, in Winston’s view, were clearly biased against him - for rather ambiguous reasons.  As a result, it was taken by many that there was an enormous miss-match between his successful deeds and career on the one hand and the credit later accorded him by the British public at large, on the other.  Later, others (of acknowledged standing) had encouraged Churchill to ‘set the record straight’ and hence this biography, entitled ‘Marlborough – His Life and Times’, was written, and later published by him, in 1933 – essentially to realise this purpose (and maybe give himself some breaks from building his famous serpentine wall  at Chartwell around that same time - during  his so called ‘wilderness years’). 

     The two ‘Volumes’ are more correctly described as Books One and Two which contained Volumes 1 and 2, and Volumes 3 and 4, respectively,  of the original work,   Each of these 4 original ‘Volumes’ have their own sets of numbered Chapters 1 to 25+ !   It  is certainly thorough and covers essentially the century from 1650 to 1750 – that is, from the Stuart  through to the Georgian era  - of essentially English history.  The genealogical coverage of the Churchill family, however, focuses more on the preceding Tudor period – of Henry VIII - and his daughter and heir  Elizabeth I – that is, mainly through the preceding 1500s.

       While the bulk of these volumes provides immense detail of the results of the author’s extensive  archival research, the brief Preface is  itself  of considerable value in that  much of that massive detail is summed up in more general terms there, and thus more ‘to the point’.  It is worth reproducing a little of this here (lightly paraphrased) to provide a quick overview of what is later covered in such detail, following our descriptions of the family’s intriguing history and pedigree.

THE PREFACE

             Winston  thus begins by noting that  “..it is an interesting historical study to examine the causes of the great disparity between the glory and importance of John Churchill’s deeds and the small regard for his memory later accorded him by many of his countrymen.   He commanded the Armies of Europe against the might of France (who had long sought domination)  in 10 major campaigns, including 4 crucial battles.  He never fought a battle he did not win, never besieged a fortress he did not take, nor ride off  a field of battle except as victor.  Until Napoleon a century later, no commander wielded such wide-spread success and power across Europe. The union of nearly 20 previously confederated states centred upon his person – when holding together the  Grand Alliance against France  - by both his military victories and  his later admired diplomacy.  In a virtual world war, involving the armies and navies of all the civilised nations, he led them against the might of that over-domineering France - for 25 years - and in so doing ultimately broke her – irretrievably.”   I think this distils matters rather well.  

      This then was the British history I knew so little about – essentially of the period  1660 - 1730.   Small wars were ‘two a penny’ then, as I would soon come to realise. It was all about ‘reversing that prolonged domination in Europe of France’, under Louis XIV  (the ‘Sun King’) -  by way of constantly shifting  alliances for and against him.  And so, in a way, has it continued  to the present  day.  Britain has recently voted (2016) to leave the E.U. but the new Prime Minister of France has just announced that maybe they could adjust  that  latter  Union - to allow Britain  to  ‘re-join’.  But, he wants also certain changes in Germany – whose economic power  and the value of the Euro, basically set by them, seem to account for  Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal all ;being seriously in debt, with high unemployment.  And so it goes.  Who should be dominant ?  Whose standard of living should always be just a bit better  than anyone else’s ?   The U.S. ?   China ?   Europe ?  Germany ?  France ?  India ?  Russia ?   Islam ?     Who basically should  ‘call the shots’ - especially their own ?

      This earlier period of concern had been described initially as that of ‘the Franco-Dutch war’ or,  if a little later, of ‘the wars of William and Anne’  - essentially between France and everyone else.  Later, the War of the Spanish Succession became embroiled in this same prolonged conflict.  After considering the Churchill family history and pedigree, we shall focus mainly of the earlier phases of John Churchill’s life and long military, and diplomatic, career, in dealing with this on-going reality.  His future roles in subsequent conflicts were well established by that stage (equally successfully) and will be summed up here rather more briefly – culminating in his victory  at Blenheim in 1704.  This saved Vienna and allowed the Grand Alliance to hold, after which Louis’s dominance  faded inexorably.

     Such wars and battles were not focused on mere piecemeal gains in British territory or influence per se but rather as one part of “the larger struggle for a Protestant Europe”. Marlborough carried forward, said Churchill, all that was best of the Protestant views of both Cromwell and the Dutchman William III  (despite the intervening monarchies of the pro-Catholic brothers Charles II and  James II in England) - to establish the basis of our present constitution and democratic parliamentary system – with  its established Protestant churches  (of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, respectively).  Ironically, religion is declining all over Europe just now (except for their salaried hierarchies who still ‘talk it up’ with a studied gravitas).  But, are there still different cultural and religious views regarding ‘democracy’ and  ‘morality’ - and who should ,really ‘decide’ things - for the ‘best’ ?  (A value judgement if ever there was one.)

    Or, as so succinctly  expressed in the vernacular by Britain’s  recent  Foreign Secretary - Boris Johnson - with respect to Britain leaving the European Union - “It’s not about Immigration or Jobs, its simply about ‘Who calls the shots’ ” (as touched on above).  And that is about national independence, sovereignty and democracy, not export sales.  Are grander unions of neighbouring nations inevitable or only for temporary alliances in times of  ‘extremis’?  Who or what is ‘right,’ or ‘best’ ?  ‘good’;  or ‘bad’  ?  Who decides ?   It’s not any of our nations’  9 or 10 year old boys   -  still being told to ‘go outside and play’;  it is, rather, just some of those young lads (and now lasses)  – just a few  years hence, when one or two of them suddenly ‘just  know’ - what’s best for the rest of us and wants to be ‘the ones who decides things’.  Possibly it depends on how they’ve been ‘conditioned’ during their youths.  Or, is it testosterone ?   Or intelligence ?  Or an urge to fulfil  one’s assumed potential and ‘destiny’ ?

   Well, eventually, someone has to decide, and ‘lead’, presumably.  Societies that have not evolved such leadership potential and choice methods are probably no longer here to tell a different story.  But, is that by a democratically elected ‘cabinet’, or by an unelected Commission (as in Europe or China) ?  Those potential leaders who seek eventually to ‘take over’ certainly rely very much on joining like-minded sub-groups and circulating winningly amongst them – talking, persuading and ‘taking the lead’ – but always with trusted companions;  and of course the backing and loyalty of a well-paid Army, Police force, and Political party, certainly helps.   And  a Church - with its leaders  ?  Or, must it always come down simply to  “… the economy, stupid…” ?

             Had the very determined plans of Louis XIV and his senior Generals  (some  of those once 9 year olds) proved triumphant instead, the freedoms, religious and democratic, that we enjoy today would have been warped and restricted even more, suggests Churchill.  This would have been the case had either Napoleon or the Kaiser (or even Hitler) later fully dominated.  One hadn’t appreciated, previously, that just as the German race, once consolidated, sought such domination in Europe - on their two major occasions (1914 and 1939), so too had France -  on their two comparable earlier occasions – in the 1670-1710 period under Louis and, from 1795-1815, under Napoleon.  Everyone, it seems, must have their turn – essentially striving to dominate the then global economy and culture.  With Spain, it was earlier and with Holland, a little later.  (There had in fact also been two shorter ‘Anglo-Dutch Wars’ relevant to our story, prior to this present focus.)  And, we mustn’t forget the British Empire, with its early control of India and North America;  Japan  too, and  the USSR,  have  now had their  turns.  China next ?

               Marlborough’s amazing career began from a surprisingly young age but he was consistently supported by the wisest counsels in the land - who gradually recognised his multiple talents.  This support included the Monarchs and Dukes mentioned, as well as such Ministers of state as Halifax, Shrewsbury, Russell, Cadogan and Godolphin - who will be further identified below.  And yet, to quote the later Churchill (in regard to his motivation in writing this biography) “fame shined unwillingly upon this future statesman and warrior whose repeated exertions brought our island and Europe safely through its perils - to produce its glorious results for Christendom”.  While Democracy vs Dictatorship was certainly important, Religion too was much more relevant then than one had previously appreciated.  It still is – in places.  Unlike the Cheetah, we, like Lions and Baboons, are a social species –– although not just social, as some would prefer to believe;  some freedom of manoeuvre for the individual must still count.   Surely, the right balance  should prevail, according  to current conditions and needs of any given species, at given times – including homo sapiens.    We  all evolve.

             While the later analyses of John Churchill’s  achievements weren’t distorted directly by the usual political suspects – ie the Whig vs Tory interpretations of history – as neither party at that time had sought actively either  to defend or to  castigate him in the round.  A number of minor elements  in his long career seem to have overly concerned certain historians and writers who, for more vaguely political or professional reasons, apparently sought to besmirch his name.  This was done, said Churchill, by  ”utilising every taunt, however bitter, every tale, however petty, every charge, however shameful or not, arising from minor incidents over a very long career.”  Maybe it just ‘sold copy’ for certain historians, and ‘hacks’ of the day.  Like most critics of talent in the Arts, Music, Sport, Literature and Architecture, say, some Historians too take their assumed and self-selected roles and critical orientation (typically without having created or accomplished anything too significant themselves)  very seriously.   Gravitas  abounds – often as  ‘role playing’.

             Based on such pretexts and on but one controversial incident (detailed later), a succession of famous English writers had apparently sought to insult Marlborough’s  memory and reproach his name. These included Swift, Pope, Thackeray and, especially, the historian Macaulay. More modern writers, noted Churchill, had at least begun to reverse and correct these distortions and prejudices of the previous 250 years.  He was now to be one of them.  I hope to analyse the complex political and cultural milieu in which John Churchill would make his mark, once into adulthood, during this unstable and complicated period in pan-European history. This is primarily to become more aware of and better understand it myself.  You may or may not wish to join me.   There is a lot of genealogy, ultimately – but it may be skipped !                                                       

            Thus, as mentioned, I would firstly address the matter of the Churchill family’s apparent origins.  This comes out in Churchill’s first Chapter, if only gradually and intermittently, inter-twined as it is with necessary descriptions of the early years in the disrupted background of John Churchill’s parents, and grandparents, as well as of John himself. The times (essentially of the English Civil War and the ensuing Commonwealth period (dominated by Cromwell’s Puritans) were very stressful and uncertain for the land-owning gentry. The Churchill family background by this stage was certainly much above that of any Yeoman level suggested earlier (with an interesting exception) but, because of those times, certain false moves could well reverse any social or economic gains in a trice.  The future was most uncertain for many. That old  adage of the gentry and aristocracy - ‘what we have, we hold’ -  was no longer as certain and achievable as had long been the case.  But, it was often accompanied by the injunction of the same class:   ‘Never complain, never explain’;  just get on with it.  Many did.  Quality will out (eventually), it seems, as I hope we shall see.

CHAPTER 2

THE CHURCHILLS DURING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR   

            John Churchill was born in 1650  to an earlier Winston Churchill,  the first in the family of that forename  (Winstone being the  maiden name of his mother),  and to his wife - Elizabeth (nee Drake).  The year 1650 is almost prophetic - falling as it did exactly mid-way between the end of the confused Civil War decade, of the 1640s, when Charles I was eventually overthrown and executed (having rigidly insisted that, as King,  his views on religion, and his role in it, should prevail), and the end of the following decade  – being that of the Commonwealth under Cromwell, when the religious Puritans (Roundheads or Parliamentarians)  were in the ascendancy  - until 1660.   John would thus grow up – to the age of 10 at least - knowing only that latter, anti-Royalist, ‘anti-establishment culture’ with its fundamentalist Christianity (Puritanism) that increasingly dominated then.  Many felt that both Anglicanism and Catholicism had become too hierarchical and authoritarian, in that sphere of control.   But, it was essentially “we know best” wherever one looked.   No one knew then of course, including young John Churchill, that this new Puritan religious and cultural milieu ‘wasn’t necessarily going to last forever’.  Many Puritans, leaving for America a few years earlier, weren’t  too sure either.   When looking back on History, it seems very difficult to ignore what we know today (and ‘they’ didn’t – in their early years).  One had to  watch one’s step carefully.

             Our saga by Winston begins with his Chapter One entitled simply, but enigmatically, ‘Ashe House ’.  This was in fact a residential property and estate in south-west Dorset that would prove to be the seat of one branch of an ancient west-country family – the Drakes - situated just inland from the small port town of Lyme Regis (then simply Lyme).   Earlier relatives named Ashe had resided there previously and hence the estate’s name. And the Drakes also held sway nearby – at Colyton  in Devon.   The  location and relevance of Ashe House in our story becomes clear only gradually in the author’s otherwise excellent prose.  However, we can cut to the chase to some extent by introducing and identifying the principal players and their roles rather sooner  than  Sir Winston felt necessary. 

               We note firstly that Ashe House was situated in that Dorset-Devon border area where Churchill had roughly placed the source of his ancestors, as mentioned above.  But this proved to be a slightly false lead.  In fact, they seemed, initially at least, to have been established, rather earlier, further into the heart of Dorset itself, nearer the northern  parishes of Minterne Magna and Wooton Glanville, some miles north-east.  But, even earlier, they appear to have  settled slightly north of that in turn - in the county of Somerset rather, and before that even  - in Devonshire to the south.   Thus, Ashe House (located just into south-west Dorset) was in fact but a temporary abode for the Churchills latterly – for about a dozen years at most.  Their Somerset and/or Devon origins were  much earlier and more complex.  And before that ?  We shall certainly see.

   While John Churchill and his siblings would thus be born and grow up under wartime conditions at Ashe House near the Dorset-Devon border, this was due entirely to the temporary circumstances of their father Winston Churchill during the Civil War.  He was a Royalist Officer in the King’s Army; that is, a Cavalier, supporting the King, and hence often ‘on the run’ from capture by the increasingly ascendant Roundheads – as they progressed successfully to their eventual victory.  Fortunately, in a way, Winston, essentially then of Wooton Glanville, Dorset, as was his father John Churchill Snr, a local lawyer,  would marry the daughter of one ‘Lady Eleanor Drake’, who did reside at Ashe House. ‘Fortunately’, as she (and her then deceased husband) were, paradoxically, Puritan supporters of  Cromwell’s Roundheads – ie on the Parliamentary side !   This contrasted with most of the country gentry in that national conflict - where most of the  west-country’s  rural under-classes and a few only of its  property-owning gentry – as the Drakes - were such supporters.  In today’s terms, the latter would be left-of-centre Socialists and Liberals (and often Non-conformist (Methodist) in religion), while the Royalists would typically be the land-owning Conservatives and successful Merchants – generally of  an Anglican  persuasion  - as members of  the established  ‘Church of England’ – with its remarkable propensity to adapt, tolerate and survive.  The Catholic Church was still functioning, but weak and struggling.

              Lady Drake was the widow of Sir John Drake  and being now on her own, was concerned about a rather fervent Royalist neighbour (Lord John Poulett).  So, in 1644, she requested that a guard of Roundheads be placed at her disposal - to protect her and her 3 daughters.  But, before they could be fully deployed, that neighbour did indeed attack her estate and partially burn down her large manor house.  Lady Drake and family then took refuge in the nearby port town of Lyme Regis for a time  (already in Roundhead hands), before moving on to London for temporary accommodation, again provided by the latter powers who then held the capitol and also dominated there.  As in the American civil war of 200 years later, many families and regions were split right down the middle – on either religious or economic/political/racial lines (or both). One is reminded of the Brexit controversy today – as during 2015-‘20.  

             Oddly, in the middle of this national conflict, it had been arranged (probably by Winston’s father John Churchill Snr) that his son, a Royalist as himself, should marry this daughter of a noted and landed Cromwellian supporter.  [It was later discovered that the Drake family had  previously held the Manor and Castle  of neighbouring Colyton in Devon, only 5 miles away, with which an earlier Churchill also had connections and the two families may well have known each other,  at least from then – partially explaining this marriage choice.]     They had  married the same year as that arson incident at Ashe House – in 1644.  But the young Churchill couple lived mostly apart from each other in those early years of their marriage – with Elizabeth remaining with her widowed Drake mother, and her own sisters, for the next 4 years, mainly in that London accommodation recently provided for them. 

             Proceedings were soon commenced against Lord Poulett that eventually gained her only £1500 (of the estimated £5000 damages (worth 70 or 80 times or more in today’s currency).  During this time, young Winston would have been stationed with his regiment in continually changing venues – that is, over the period 1645-47 - as the conflict still raged throughout the country in much confusion.   But, by late 1647, he and his wife were apparently able finally to live together, but still with her mother Lady Drake – when the young family  all returned to a still damaged Ashe House in south-west Dorset.  This at least afforded them some Roundhead security, if under rather Spartan conditions for landed gentry – in their burnt-out shell of a home.

             While Winston was able to avoid arrest and fines by the Roundheads  there (it being assumed to be a totally non-Royalist, non-threatening household) for the next 2 or 3 years, he was eventually brought to justice - as the Roundheads saw it – for having been an active ‘Captain in the King’s army’.  His fine, still addressed to ‘Winston Churchill of Wooton Glanville, Dorset, Gent’ amounted to about £450 - which was considerable for a man whose estate (a part only of that of his lawyer father  John Churchill, Esq - also of Wooton) - was worth but £160 per annum (as received from its rents and profits).   This left him too little to maintain his own  marital home there  and, in any case, his widowed father had recently re-married and, as Winston  didn’t get on with  his new step-mother, they soon moved back into Ashe House with his Drake mother-in-law and family, at least initially, for the protection that her status could still provide them

          [We may note here that one’s social status in those times (and for centuries before) was described, in ascending order, as ‘Labourer, Husbandman, Groom, Yeoman, Gentleman (Gent) and Esquire (Esq)’; above this  were the Knights  (‘Sirs’) and the Nobility (‘Lords’) and finally, Royalty.  While both Winston and his father lived at their small estate in Wooton Glanville, the father John, still its sole owner, was thus an Esq, while his adult son would remain a Gent, until and if inheriting an estate himself.   At all levels, there were continual attempts to make out and aspire to be seen as being of the station just above that which the facts (if known) would typically warrant.  If, at marriage, one falsified one’s current social status, a fine could be levied.  Many men working and living in the larger cities would often still be classed along these same ‘rural’ lines - as a Groom or a Yeoman, say, even if no longer having anything to do with country estates or farming per se- (often on  rented land - as a tenant or Yeoman/Copyholder   when that status was enrolled (Copied) into the manor’s permanent and legal Estate (manor) Records on vellum).  The point was they had to work – with or without using their hands; a proper Gentleman (and/or Esq)  on the other hand, didn’t have to;  he would typically have  other, more reliable,  income sources.   It was sometimes a fine distinction.]

           An Esquire owned his own land (Freehold) and/or received sufficient  income from it or from investments or a quality profession; a young Gentleman was often in a more precarious position (reliant on others) - just below that level - but usually quite well educated.  Prudent Yeomen with savings could lend money to imprudent Gents and Esqs and eventually buy them out, and so ascend the social scale – as ‘new money’.  Marriages generally entailed property agreements - with little or no cognizance taken with respect to any mutual love or affection. And primogeniture assured that estates remained essentially intact over the generations - by descending  down only the eldest son’s ownership;  not split up endlessly between siblings and cousins over successive generations, as in some  countries (eg  France), with their own conceptions of equity, fairness and justice.

            Leaseholders were often of a more ambiguous status  - as semi-gentry.  And some ‘Freeholders’ were actually only Leaseholders if their  property was originally held  ‘of the King (Crown)’ or ‘of some very early Norman Baron’ (granted it by succeeding Kings ca 1066-1400s)  and since forgotten, as families died out; but actually was still really ‘owned’ by distant others who had inherited such former Crown estates for which albeit very long Leases had  eventually  run out. Later Wills may leave property to heirs that were originally in the form of 500-year Leases which, unrealised, had run out and were invalid.  

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

            Once settled back  at Ashe house (1648), the young Churchill couple’s first surviving child was a daughter Arabella – born there in Feb 1649 - and their second, a son  - John Churchill (our primary subject) - on 26 May 1650.  Several others (12 in all !) would follow, but most did not survive.  Baptisms were registered at St Michael’s, Musbury, the nearest parish church (with some property there still owned by the Drakes) – albeit located just inside Devonshire. The Vicar  (with Puritan oversight?) would probably have provided some early education for the boys at least - including John and his brothers George and  Charles - in the later 1650s.  But it is more probable, notes Churchill, that their father would take control of that subsequently - as he was himself of an academic bent (having been to Oxford ca 1630s) but with no large estate yet to manage, or a profession (beyond the Army) to pursue.   Indeed, he had the time and interest to investigate his own family’s uncertain genealogy and armorial status, being eventually motivated to do so because of its advantages in ‘those times’ (described later). 

        Winston  and family were finally able to return to his own property in Wooton Glanville by 1660, after his father had died there the year before (as, coincidently, had Cromwell and his Commonwealth experiment).  Both events would provide Winston Churchill and family with a more secure, if modest, lifestyle, estate and future – as appeared initially at least to be the case.    For these developments happily coincided with the Restoration - of the Monarchy, when Chares II  returned from exile in France – if still under the protection and  financial support of Louis XIV (a fellow Catholic).  Such events seemed to re-energise Winston Churchill. He was soon elected as M.P for the important Dorset port of Weymouth (previously held by members of the local Bond family (of Dorchester and Steeple) where they seem to have played the Roundhead ‘card’). And Winston also became virtually a founding member of the new Royal Society of leading academics in London.  Many arrangements and compromises were forthcoming between the former opposing sides – whether based on religious or political differences. Old scores were settled and gradually parliamentary government, but under a King  with his ministers,  returned – in the 1660s.

          The ‘Court’ – of friends and family surrounding the Monarchy  – once more became one of the realities of daily social and political life, and of economic influence, advancement and control.  One progressed in life as much by whom you knew in that vague institution (the royal ‘Court’), as by what you knew,  although the latter apparently did still count to a certain extent – and  rather more in England than it did in more rigid France – with its comparable  royal Court – until its own Revolution a century or more later.

           In this reality, Winston Churchill sought the advancement of himself and, increasingly, of his eldest son, John Churchill – still only 12 to 14 - as this new order evolved in the early years of that Restoration period (post-1660). Winston no doubt continued to oversee his son’s education locally, but would be on the lookout for a placement for him in Royal or Court circles and/or into a good ‘Public’ school.  His own background was in the Army (although he had briefly attended University, and one of the  Inns of Court (where lawyers were trained)  and he likely still had contacts in those spheres as well. Moreover, his steadfast support for the Royalist cause over the difficult years of the 1640s and ‘50s meant that the King’s advisors sought special consideration for him (and others like him) within the financial limits that Charles II found himself on his return in 1660 - with a very  depleted Treasury. 

                In his account, our author Churchill remarks on the seeming special treatment his earlier namesake received for his recognised merits and services for the King’s executed father Charles I, and now for his own role as an active M.P. in the new royalist parliament under Charles II.  For one thing, his Churchill family’s Coat of Arms was to be ‘augmented’ to a higher standing, something that he was known to be seeking after his own recent investigations - of the family’s long-uncertain Armorial background.  For another, he obtained  a position for his young son John Churchill, as a Page in the Royal Household  - that of the king’s  brother James, Duke of York (a future king  himself).  Indeed, James would play a most important, on-going role in the future of young John Churchill, and thus in our story generally, over the next 25 years.  But first…

CHAPTER 3

THE EARLY CHURCHILL PEDIGREE

             At this point, we pause in our intended coverage of young John Churchill’s subsequent military and diplomatic career, and his rise to fame, and return to consider further his family’s origins as they unfolded long before the Civil War.  In an examination of that earlier  Coat of Arms, Winston found – likely with the help of the long established College of Arms in London, and any early published pedigrees then available - that the Churchill  Arms appeared to be based on a rather ancient one of  ‘Otho de Leon’, who was  described as the ‘Castelan de Gisorn’ (seemingly in Leon in France), before 1000 AD !   Otho  was said to have had two sons – Richard (b. ca 1020) and Wandrill (b. ca 1025) – the latter referred to as the ‘Lord of Courcelles’   “…whose youngest son (unnamed) came into England in 1066, with William the Conqueror.”

         This line was then roughly traced (he doesn’t say by whom but see Chapter 4 for more on  this)  over the next few generations - to, say, the mid-1100s -  when Winston noted reference to  a certain  ‘John, Lord of Curricelle’ (or, ‘as in subsequent divers records’ -‘’de Curechelle’, ‘later called ‘de Churichille’), in Somerset’) - whose son ‘Sir Bartholomew de Curichelle’ was a Knight  of great note in the time of King Stephen’ - ca 1130-50s.  [We may confidently point out here that these early versions of the family name - that would gradually evolve toward ‘Churchill’, between  1100 and ca 1400,  were typically spelt with a capital C followed by the consonant  ‘h’ (or not), followed  by  one or two of the possible vowels, followed by the letter ‘r’, followed by the letter ‘c’, followed by the consonant ‘h’ (or not), followed again by any of the possible vowels, followed by a single, or a double, letter ‘l’, followed finally by  the letters ‘e and sometimes ‘s’ (or not).  There could and would easily be 50 different such early spellings;  almost anything would do to fill out that central core of   ‘c-r-c-l’.]

          In any case,  it thus  appears that the original source of the family and its name very likely does not derive from some ‘church relevant hill’ in southern England  (whether Dorset, Somerset or Devon) but, rather, ultimately  from a manor or district called something like ‘Courcelles’ in Normandy,  France  !  That early English manor (and later village),  in Somerset, had thus acquired its name –eventually as  ‘Churchill’ - from  the first principal family to settled there – by about 1150 - rather than the other way around.  This village and parish of Churchill remains there to this day, thus named,  Is there a church and a note-worthy hill nearby – or not ?  Most  probably not.   There would in fact be 5 or 6 other early Manors and villages in scattered locations across the southern counties which all had this same  French-sounding name and  origin, but from rather earlier – by  about 1070 or so.

          [We may note that, for a ‘consideration’, the  College of Arms (or some in it) have been known  to ‘help’ one  establish an apparently valid pedigree. There appears to be sufficient evidence in the Churchill case however not to have required any such suspect assistance – as will become apparent. Moreover, another Churchill descendent whose early family settled in Oxfordshire (an ex-Army General) found this same pattern in his family’s earliest surname spellings – it too having evolved gradually from such as Curcelle, Courichilles, Cherichull, etc.)  And, more recently, we have noted that the famous Great Doomsday Book of 1086  reveals that there were indeed about 4 or 5 other such early ‘Churchill’ Manors (later villages)  in other west-country counties whose names became so established from this same source – possibly from the sons, brothers and nephews of that early Courcelle family who had settled and remained there over those earlier  generations.   The villages concerned are mostly still there today – now as ‘Churchill’ – all having evolved from  earlier  forms of that Norman surname  (as Courechelle, etc ) - as recorded in that famous Book of 1086.   It is  now held in the Public Record Office   (National Archives)  -  in Kew, west London.  It was effectively the first English Census.

          Thus, we have found that near Kidderminster, in Worcestershire, the Great Book lists (in folio 117r)  a Manor called then ‘Cercehalle’ (now Churchill) with 40 inhabitants in 1086. Their names were about 15% Norman French and 85% Anglo-Saxon);  near Banbury in Oxfordshire was another early settlement called ‘Cerecelle’ (now Churchill) where many of the  inhabitants (or property holders often residing  elsewhere) appeared to be quite high ranking, with titles and important church positions.  Another in Worcestershire  was called ‘Circhehille’;  and finally there was at least one in Devonshire (folio 11r)  called ‘Cercelle’ with 28 inhabitants’ names having  this same early Norman:Anglo-Saxon balance.  This Devon ‘Churchill’ was located near Exeter, I believe, and is discussed further below.  

              A generation later, King Stephen (‘of Blois’) reigned from 1135 to 1154, during which time a rival cousin, (Empress Matilda), also claimed the English throne - resulting in a protracted mini-civil war, ending about 1153.  [I have recently been reminded that just north of my present location (in Northallerton, North Yorkshire), Stephen  fought the ‘Battle of the Standard’ as early as  1138 - against Matilda’s  Scottish supporters – Stephen’s side again winning.]   In the south, Bartholomew had supported Stephen (as we are informed by Winston’s uncertain  source) but died doing so in about 1152 – in the west country at or near Bristol Castle, in Somerset.  The considerable lands acquired previously by the first  Churchill(s)  ca 1066 to ca 1130, say (and still held in 1086), mostly in Somerset,  may have been compromised, however,  during  those  early- to mid-1100s by some Royal dictat  (after a change of King), but some time after this  some advantages again accrued to the  family  – as when the next Churchill of note had  provided Stephen (as well as the next monarch (Henry 1st) with much needed support in  those dangerous and competitive  times.  

              There doesn’t appear to have been any attempt to discover any specific spread of the first one or two male ‘Churchills’  (Courcelles) from  their arrival  in 1066  -  before settling in such as the west country, or in any other particular region.  All we can say is that they seem to have appeared quite early in Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Somerset, Devon, and even Dorset - by the late 11th – early 12th century. We shall however describe later another Norman family (the Bartelots; later Bartletts) – possibly related to William de l’Eu (a considerable early Norman land owner)  - who also benefitted from their role in protecting certain chief Barons and their families (often Royal relatives) who had received grants of property from King William , in widely disbursed locations.   (This purposive dispersal to obviate cliques of close relatives and friends from later having  a more cohesive power-base - from which  to attempt rebellion) and as a result the Bartelots were able themselves to settle near those scattered Nobles’ - through grants of local land from that chief Baron, in turn. These would be confirmed by their initially French surnames – now holding smaller Manors in such areas.  Three or four other families of similar status apparently inter-married, seemed to be distributed likewise, if less widely or reliably, in those same areas -  mostly in the south and west of England. 

               One of these families was indeed the Churchills – one son of whom (Bartholomew) seems to have  benefitted by his relationship with a Baron Ralph FitzRalph…(and marrying his sister)  while  serving Kings Stephen or Henry 2st,  in Somerset and Devon.   It is this branch of the family  that we shall seek to trace out – from their apparent beginnings before their later association with a manor eventually called Churchill in Somerset - without knowing if any other branches (of ‘de Courcelles’, etc) had survived or prospered elsewhere (as land-holders rather than, subsequently, as Yeomen), – as in Devon or Dorset.  We shall describe a situation later where the early Churchills appear to have spread from Somerset south to Devon and then east to Dorset.  The latter could well have linked up there, however, around 1500,  with  another branch which may have spread more directly from Sussex west  into Hampshire and then into south-east Dorset. This would occur  through the 1200s  to 1400s, say - unless their presence there, (as near Corton, Dorset)  may even  have preceded 1066 ,as discussed later.  

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

       [NB    We have, since writing the above,  come across an Internet  site that lists  the major land-holders in each county at the time of the Domesday Survey (1086).  The first impression was of the enormous number of Manors (mostly now parishes and villages) somehow then held by about a dozen or so of William’s original Barons and Tenants-in-Chief  - in many different  counties (if sometimes, if rarely,  concentrated  in just one or two).   Many of these were then sub-let to a range of  local citizens – whether Normans or Anglo-Saxons.  Their lands were  often described as being “ ...held   ‘of’  (or  ‘from’)   one of those  few named Norman Barons  or Tenants-in- Chief.” Above them, everything  was affectively held ultimately ‘of the Crown’.

            I first examined this situation for Somerset (quite arbitrarily) and discovered that one of (if not the) Tenant-in-Chief there,  by and before 1086,  was a  ‘Roger de Couriceulles’ - who effectively ‘owned’ or ‘held’ over 80 such Manors in that one county !!   Oddly, however, when one checked for such  details with respect specifically to those Manors soon to be re-named such as ‘Cercelle’ or similar (from just after 1066, say) in Oxfordshire, Worcestershire or Devon, (all later to become, and be known as, ‘Churchill’),  the then current ‘owners’ (holders), at or soon after 1086,  did not included any individuals named Courecelles  or similar. Nevertheless, there would later be quite a few in those general areas with the  Churchill form of that surname– probably descended from younger sons or cousins of those earlier Norman land ‘owners’ (typically the elder son) – who, it seems, didn’t actually reside there themselves by then. Those later residents would  generally have become  Yeomen  - who had to  pay rent to some such absentee landowner – often re-granted the Manor concerned  by some  later Baron or King who had  gained or seized  their control.    

        I then checked for Roger’s  similar involvement then  (1086 or before)  in Devon but this proved to be much less the case than in Somerset.. And, similarly, in Dorset, I found (so far) only  one such early ‘ownership’ - by  this Roger de Courcelles– of a small manor called  Corton  near  Portisham (mentioned above).  This further confirmed  the odd reference  I’d  come across to same from time to time, if with no details to better confirm  that possible early Churchill holding with any confidence.  Future Churchills did of course descend in this  area  also – again probably from younger  sons or brothers – typically named John or William, it would seem.   Did they eventually settle in nearby Dorchester town itself – by ca 1500, or even before  ?  The answer seems to have been ‘yes’.                             

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

             There had in any case been little time in that first post-1066 century to have resulted  in  more than 2 or 3 other early branches – wherever.  One family of  ‘Churchills’ seemed to then continue residing in Somerset and/or north Devon (see below) for several more generations - through the reigns of  Henry 2nd and 3rd (1200-1300 ) and the  Barons’ Wars (against King John) by which time, or during the reign of Edward 1st (1272–1306),  the many Churchill-owned (but not so named) Manors  in Somerset had already been ‘re-seized’  by the Crown, with many others,  and given or sold to some  favourite supporting Baron, or  well-off local Yeoman.  [Note:  Something similar seems also to have happened a little later  - to the first Roger de Couercelle’s elder son or grandson  - around  1120-1140 - in  Somerset.]   From then, and during the period 1200- 1400s (including  the confusions of the Was of the Roses), tracing exact relationships and descents  becomes, for a time,  rather  more uncertain. 

               That early Somerset manor, to be known later as ‘Churchill’ (not yet noted in the Doomsday Book but likely  established by Bartholomew a little later  (1140-50)  was, in any case, sold much later  (after that blank period) to a landed family named Jennings - who held it from about 1550 for a further century.  During this extended period (200+ years), the later Churchills would presumably have had to survive locally, or elsewhere nearby, as best they could, depending on what other resources, marriages, educations or properties they may have managed to arrange, hold or acquire – while ever seeking to maintain some social and economic standing.  But, the detail of the family’s history over that 200 year period appeared, initially, to be  rather  scant and uncertain - at this point.

              As a consequence, as pointed out by our more contemporary Winston, the family may have become distributed into many levels of society in Oxford, Somerset, Worcestershire, Devon and Dorset through the 12th to 14th centuries, with some elements hopefully still sufficiently educated and moneyed to resume their former positions and status - at the Gentleman and Esquire levels (that is, certainly above that of Husbandman or Yeoman), as conditions allowed.   [Thus, we may consider the rather ‘up-market’ marriage  (1472)  of a later Charles Churchill to a Margaret Wydville/Woodville -  an apparent relative of the then Queen). ).  Where did they live then ? At what level ?     What social contacts did they have ca 1460-90  - still in south Devon ? 

          We recall that the Jennings bought the Somerset estate a little later,  around 1550, and were  forced to sell it in 1652  -  to clear debts arising from the recent English Civil war – a common problem among the gentry at the time (if one was on the wrong side).  Who would then be able to buy it - in that later Commonwealth period (ca 1650-60), say (with some implied fore-shadowing  - to be clarified below).

              This brings us back to those later times  of John Churchill, Esq, (ca 1630s-‘50s), the Dorset lawyer of Wooton Glanville, and his son and grandson  - Winston and John Jnr (of the Civil War period,  and its aftermath  1660s) - with  the latter John’s life  still being our ultimate focus.  We have assumed that during the 16th century and the Tudor reigns mainly of Henry 8th and his daughter Elizabeth 1st, there were still some senior Churchills in that general west country area - connecting us back to the earlier Somerset family and their  manor of Churchill (near Bristol). This was many generations earlier of course – through the confusions and troubles of the 1400s (with its Wars of the Roses)  and into the ensuing, more stable, Tudor period of the 1500s. But, between the two, we have all those above questions to try to answer.

            These will hopefully be better answered once we have read Winston’s account (as conveyed by his later namesake) in regard to the history of the family’s Arms and Manor(s).  For he points out that, confusingly, there was, after the Elizabethan era, another, contemporary John Churchill, also a noteworthy lawyer, who achieved great distinction in both the  pre-  and  post-Commonwealth  periods – but in London, rather than in Wessex.    This was during the later stages of Charles  I’s reign,  then through Cromwell’s ascendancy  and into  the Restoration of Charles II – post-1660.   Where does this new John Churchill (and his forebears) fit in, we must ask ? He appears to have later been  fully  in neither political nor religious camp in those early to mid-1600s.

              Indeed, he was (eventually) a knighted ‘Sir John Churchill’, who had risen to hold the significant legal posts of Attorney General and latterly ‘Master of the Rolls’, by the 1670s – advancing in stature from the 1640s onwards - when he continued to thrive  and advance under Cromwell.  Such a sustained position would suggest he wasn’t necessarily of either a Roundhead or Royalist disposition, but someone who kept his cards close to his chest.  Indeed, he turned out to be a rather bright and influential character, if a bit of a ‘chancer’, who sometimes sailed rather close to the wind.  Moreover, with his success, he‘d acquired sufficient wealth to retire - to the west country himself - and purchase an estate there - namely, that at Churchill  in north Somerset (!) - from  the Jennings (who, unexpectedly,  re-enter our story again in a totally different context, and rather significantly, later).  

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

              This London lawyer, Sir John Churchill, was thus undoubtedly another descendent of this same one line of Churchills - one who also seems to have sought to re-establish the family’s  origins and bona fides after the war – through the purchase of that earlier family Manor, one that we would assume was relevant to their common descent.   He was  born around 1620, oddly similar to that of our earlier Winston, and to later be seeking much the same thing.  Sir John Churchill was thus younger than Winston’s father, also a John Churchill (the Dorset  lawyer) – then of  Wooton Glanville, Esq)  - who was  born near the end of the previous century – a generation earlier.  Training in Law was centred then at the Inns of Court in London and our older Dorset lawyer John, a Royalist (Cavalier) and member of Middle Temple (one of 4 or 5 such ‘Inns of Court’), would surely have known this slightly younger, and eventually more illustrious legal ‘cousin’ -  who was to become, and die as,   ‘Sir John Churchill,  Master of the Rolls’ – one of the highest legal potions in the land,

               Indeed, the younger man succeeded the older in a position of Deputy Master of Chancery,  even if they had trained at different Inns:   John of Dorset  at Middle Temple (from 1614) and Sir John of London (to be) at Lincoln’s Inn - (from 1638, somewhat later), both pre-Civil  war  days.   For that latter John, the times had apparently been quite good - in both Cromwell’s 1650s, when that ancient Somerset estate became conveniently available – and, subsequently as noted,  after the Restoration, post-1660.  He was thus a kind of ‘Vicar of Bray’ character.  His elder lawyer ‘cousin’, on the other hand, back in Dorset, suffered somewhat for his continued adherence and loyalty to the Royal cause alone, as would his son Winston Churchill in turn, now a contemporary of this beknighted ‘cousin’ -  the first Sir John Churchill.  But, ultimately, Winston would match him – becoming an MP, a founder of the Royal Society and father of the future  Duke of Marlborough – to be given Blenheim Palace !  Sir John, on the other hand,  had 4 daughters – who  later became  an awkward expense to marry off !  He was ‘broke’ by the end.

               A clue to the connection between these two branches of the Churchill family (and to those who held the Churchill manor earlier) is provided by a later comment made by our said Winston  when he first refers to the forename of his own grandfather – one Jasper Churchill – that is, father of his  own father  John  Churchill, Esq, the  Dorset lawyer (who was born, it now appears, about  1592).  The latter man’s now revealed father  Jasper  was thus, in turn, likely born about 1570  -  in mid-Elizabethan  times.  Moreover, Winston also usefully names  this Jasper’s own father - as one  Mathew Churchill  (bn. ca 1545), near the end of Henry 8th’s reign.   And Mathew  in turn, it seems, was  the only a  son  of  one  Roger Churchill  – likely born himself about 1515-20 or so, as estimated) - quite early in  Henry’s reign.   This Roger Churchill will long remain an important enigma in our  searches – with little or no documentary sources (evidence) confidently attached to his name, identity and history. 

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

               The suggested connection of these  differing Churchill branches appears to arise from information on the paternal parentage of   Sir John Churchill, the successful London lawyer, shown separately from our other sources.  For Sir John’s father  is discovered   (confusingly) to be another  (but  younger) Jasper Churchill  (Jnr)  - he latterly also  ‘of London’.  This  later-born Jasper Jnr  was thus not the son of  Mathew Churchill (b. ca 1545), shown above,  but was, rather, that elder Jasper’s  second son – born after  first son John, the Dorset lawyer (to be) , and thus the latter’s  younger brother - born about two years later  (ca 1694);  he was thus  Winston’s uncle.   The pedigree chart should help clarify  the relationships  amongst these  various  early John and Jasper Churchills.p;                                    

               We note that the latter John Churchill (the Dorset lawyer of Wooton Granville and, later, nearby Minterne Magna), was described by our more contemporary (20th century) Winston  as the one who most improved the fortunes of his  branch of the Churchill family at least – having, as mentioned,  become a Deputy Registrar in Chancery, as well as being a member of Middle Temple in London himself.   He had  married quite well – into the aristocratic Winstone family of Gloucestershire – and, as a Cavalier, did equally well for his eldest son Winston in turn - in arranging his marriage  - to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Drake, of that important  west country family.  The latter family  was, albeit, of  a  more liberal Parliamentary persuasion who, incidentally, had earlier produced Sir Francis Drake, the famous Elizabethan explorer and of that branch at Musbury and Colyton, Devon - near Ashe House.

            While John Churchill, the Dorset lawyer (bn  ca 1592)  may have effectively lifted himself up by his own bootstraps,  possibly including arranging his own marriage with the daughter of a landed family, it is equally likely that both he and his own father Jasper  Snr (bn ca 1570) had  some vital assistance  from  yet another  law graduate  named John Churchill  ! (b ca 1568)  - descended from yet another (ie third)  branch of the family !  This latter John  had  entered both Oxford and Middle Temple, even earlier,  in 1586  –  thus making three such John Churchill lawyers in our story in a row – each seemingly of a different  branch !   There was obviously talent in the family coupled with  some education and increasing  financial security – from a rather shaky start, after their earlier travails.

             As a successful Esq of the early 1600s, that latter John Churchill  may well have had contacts with such as the Winstone family (of distant Gloucester) – as through  a fellow law student in London of that family.  We shall place his position in the family more clearly below.  This John  may not have  practised as  an active  lawyer however but would likely put his legal training to good use (as many  thus  educated then did)  when  inheriting and managing a family  estate  with  its often  litigious implications (as when being claimed by others on dubious grounds). 

            The younger,  middle one of  our three  John Churchill lawyers – he of Wooton Granville (bn ca 1592)  was able subsequently to purchase a little more Dorset property - at Newton Montecito (near Wooton) and at Minterne Magna (just to  the south), in which the family appears to have had an earlier interest - thus improving the overall value of their otherwise modest mid-Dorset estate.  All this would presumably be inherited by son Winston by 1660, just after his father John died, and the Monarchy had been restored – to Charles II.

              But the younger Sir John Churchill – the London lawyer- also did well in this regard - having married Susan Prideaux, daughter of  Cromwell’s Attorney General - Sir Edmund Prideaux  - of Devon, and later buying that  former Churchill manor in Somerset.   He had 4 daughters   but no son. Marrying them off would  prove quite an expense for him in his future retirement years. This  type of problem had apparently happened  quite often in earlier periods of the  main Churchill family descent,  as we shall see.  A paucity of viable sons but several daughters would soon diminish the worth of the original Churchill estates and their longer  term security.  [Oddly, and ironically, the son of this John’s younger brother, Jasper, would later be in a position to help him (and others in financial trouble) – to be described later.]         

             The elder Jasper’s father Mathew (b. ca 1545)  and his father in turn  - Roger  (b. ca 1518)  would  take us back nearer  that  uncertain period during the   early 1500s  -  long after the Churchill estate  in Somerset had  apparently been seized  or somehow lost, but much before  it had been purchased by the  early Jennings  - in mid-Tudor times (ca 1550)  and/or subsequently lost by  them,  and (re)-purchased by Sir John Churchill, a century later.  

       [Note that until the times of the three Lawyers and their issue (ca 1620-50s), our dates for their respective forefathers, and those of said Jasper, Mathew and Roger Churchill,  have often had to be estimated on the basis of  any  available evidence, if often  piecemeal and of uncertain validity, via often unreliable  Internet sources that are often quoted and re-quoted quite uncritically.   They may well be ‘out’ by 15 % or more  either way and thus earlier generations can quickly become significantly  mis-placed in our temporal analysis  (and in its spatial one also).    We would hope however to locate more accurate supporting evidence subsequently - to further consolidate our understanding.   [Yes – a little more is now at hand; see below, but proper source material is still very reluctant to reveal itself.]   Sadly, church records of births and marriages were  not  registered before 1538 and, even then, often later lost or destroyed – as may have been  property and legal documents;  And archive searches entail deciphering difficult early English or Latin script that can be  small,  faded  and  very time-consuming.]

             The basis and means of affording educations for the latter two young lawyers (uncle and nephew) during the Stuart era and Civil War period  is obviously a major factor in the family’s rehabilitation and subsequent progress. This usually implies some property holdings (and thus rental income - to pay for that crucial education) which can often be monitored and confirmed by examination of property transfer documents and Wills registered at the time and now held amongst other  property litigation documents in the National Archives  at Kew (or at more local County record offices).   In any case, we may accept that the forebears of our prime subject, John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough,  descended  via the   aforementioned line of:

William, Roger,  Mathew,  Jasper,  John and  Winston  CHURCHILL    –

with two other parallel branches apparently having split off a bit earlier from that  line’s main  progenitor (William Churchill) – to be discussed next, below.  

             Readers who do not wish to  become seduced into the intriguing complexities of the  necessary  genealogy required to  established the validity of that latter statement can quite easily jump directly  from here (end of Chapter 3  to the start of Chapter 20  (about 120+  pages hence) -  to continue with Marlborough’s career itself.   For establishing and clarifying that bridge from the  distant  past to that post-Marlborough period has been exceedingly challenging, but  productive  of much useful material in the  search for all relevant background  Churchill evidence and its associated analysis and significance. 

A REVISED EARLY GENEALOGY

              Having arrived at  uncertain conclusions and with a rather vague conception of the dates  and  individuals  involved,  our  earlier Winston continued with his family  history account    by next referring to  “the ancestor  of the present ‘Churchills  of ‘Munston’. ”  That is, to those so identified    living  at  that latter village or manor then  contemporary  with   himself.   We would  assume this would be   during  the 1650s and ‘60s.    ‘Munston’ (never mentioned previously)  appeared  initially to be a parish (today called ‘Manston’) – as it was located quite near to Winston’s home parish of Wooton Glanville – in  central Dorset - and so reasonably close to  Somerset  and  that original Churchill  manor  there which he had most recently considered - of a century or more before .  So, who was  that ancestor - of  this  now later settled family?

            That earlier ancestor  had  seemingly shifted his farmer location - apparently from  that  earlier  Somerset manor towards  this later mentioned one -  of  ‘Munston’   (nearer Wooton  in mid-north Dorset)  seemingly – at some  unknown time in the past   He  was  named  (unsurprisingly, says Winston), as yet another ‘John Churchill’.  He  appeared  to be somehow associated with or related to the above mentioned Roger - of  equally early birth  (they possibly being brothers or cousins, say,  and thus born  around the early 11500s – as during 1515 to 1520 say).  For he had also mentioned   Roger’s wife (the  mother of Mathew) – as  “having been born a Peverell”  - an ancient  landed  family   (quite like the Churchills).  Such a  Peverell daughter  would likely be a significant  heiress – for one’s  elder Churchill son  to marry.

          Early accounts often describe  her as having been married firstly - as Jane Peverell -  to one Nicholas Megges  and,  only secondly,  as Jane Megges, widow,  to our said Roger Churchill.  Both marriages had seemingly transpired, according to Winston,  back at that original Churchill manor  in  Somerset.   Jane thus appeared  to have become  an early  widow (of Megges)  - and so then held that Somerset property in her own name – as well as other Peverell  lands elsewhere.   All this would be taking place (apparently) around the time of Henry 7th or early 8th -  ca 1500  to 1530, say, before the story then  continued  until  the time Winston described for the establishment  of that subsequent  manor  - at ‘Munston’  -  by the  early 1600s, say;  that is, about  that suggested  century later.

        [The reader may be assisted here by learning  that there was in fact a similarly named Manor -  but called ‘Muston’ - which  a much later John Churchill did  indeed purchase – but not until ca 1610-‘15  (not 1530-50).   It was located  further east or south-east - near the Dorset county town of Dorchester  - where that John’s grandfather,  an even  earlier John Churchill (who was (apparently) Roger’s brother)  had resided - from ca 1540-‘60  - ie 125 years earlier !   But neither he nor Roger (who would himself live nearer  Dorchester by then)   derived,  in any immediate sense,   from that ancient Churchill manor in north Somerset, or similar. All becoming a little ‘cloudy’.] 

          The more immediate origins of these more recent progenitors of Winston’s own family and the actual location, much later, of  a manor of confused  name, were essentially unknown by Winston – whose appreciation of both the locations and  timings   of these various elements of his own family’s background  was clearly quite  limited, confused  and uncertain.  He had grown up in the 1620s-‘30s   (partly in London) and, much later (ca 1650s), may have only vague recollections (of 25 years earlier) of hearing something about some  other Churchill line being mentioned at odd times - who  had once  resided  in  Dorchester and /or somewhere called (something like)  ‘Mustone’ or ‘Munston’.     In those days, one didn’t have the immediate access to vast information sources, nor the   conveniently  compressed perspective on history  afforded by same that we have today;  no newspapers, telephones, maps  or radios, never mind  an Internet or  databases !   

            After describing that rather  later situation regarding the purchase by Sir John Churchill, ‘Master of the Rolls’, of that  original Somerset manor of Churchill  from the Jennings (1652)  - who had  held it from about 1552  -  Winston  bemoans the fact that had the latter  family not  ‘alienated’ that early manor (and so sell it precipitately through debts), it might conceivably have come eventually to his (Winston’s) own son John –  he being of course a quite  different and much later John Churchill (the future Duke);  this odd possibility could have come about by virtue of John’s eventual  marriage (would you believe) to a daughter  of that  same Jennings’ family,  if much later,  namely,  Sarah Jennings - as will be fully detailed below.    This later event would be a complete coincidence however  – that  marriage having  absolutely nothing whatsoever  to do with the former Jennings ownership of that much earlier Churchill manor, even indirectly.

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

             Winston  then continues by describing the next equally  confused period of the family’s descent as he understood it.  We quote this mostly verbatim just below as it may help if any future  re-analysis seems required (as in fact proved  to be the case) - to better account for that missing 125 years !  So, he continues:

           “All this was very fine”, notes Winston,  “ but,  when we come to John, ancestor of those  present Churchills  of  ‘Munston’, and to (that John’s  seeming brother) Roger  Churchill who, by the daughter (Jane) - nee Peverell, relict of Nicholas Megges, had issue Mathew, the father of my grandfather Jasper)…we enter a rather ‘shady phase”…(for)…  “Edward Harley (an earlier bibliophile) has rudely asserted that our present John Churchill’s  great grandfather   (Jasper) was  (allegedly)  a Blacksmith (!) - who worked  for  the  Megges”.  This information , says Winston, was   “…from a footnote, quoting  an entry in a  ‘commonplace diary’  possessed by an  earlier  Duke of Portland  and, certainly, as John’s  gt-gt-gt grandfather,  Roger, had apparently married a widowed Mrs Megges), this was all  rather  suspicious, and even disquieting.”     Yes, and  rather  confusingly described also !   It  may benefit from a re-reading and a further analysis regarding  the timing of so many variables  concerning  the people and places implied  – thus: 

            Assuming that ‘our present John Churchill’  was indeed Winston’s son - the future Duke (b 1650)  -  this indicates  that after Roger Churchill allegedly married  the widow Jane Megges (nee Peverell)  - around 1544, say -  and soon had  by her a son Mathew Churchill (ca 1545-7),  who in turn had a son Jasper about 1570,  with  the latter man  allegedly becoming  a  Blacksmith (for Megges) - around  1586, seemingly.   This does seem most odd -  in that Megges would have been long dead by then and, secondly, we would  assume that a son in a landed family wouldn’t normally have had to pursue such an occupation.    But, if both Roger and Mathew  died quite young (which, sadly, they both did), Jasper may have been in a rather vulnerable position –  more possibly  if his mother Jane  had re-married yet again (by ca 1565, say) and young Jasper’s welfare was somehow then subordinated  to any later issue Jane might have by such a new  husband who, in those times, quickly  assumed   considerable  control  of  (now)  their  (essentially his)new  estate.   There was very little sentiment about then.  But,  the law ?

            As Roger apparently did  die  quite young –  around 1552,  as we’ve  estimated –  and Mathew as well, about 1575,  at a similar young age,  it would appear that  the latter’s  son in turn, Jasper, may indeed have  had to  pursue  this  surprising  role – in the short term.  But how would such employment be  described  as ‘working  for the Megges’ -  if Jane’s first husband  (Nicholas Megges) had  indeed already died  - before either Jasper (or  even before his father Mathew) had been born (to her and Roger)?   Clearly, there was some mix up  in the facts and dates as obtained (or later recalled from his youth) by Winston – including the name and possible location of  that  somewhat  later Churchill manor –  seemingly thought by him to be at  ‘Munston’  or whatever.   [See more later on relevant manors  at  ‘Muston’ and/or ‘Pulston’ (in the south) – but never at a ‘Munston’ or ‘Manston’ (more to the  north/west) – albeit  all still in Dorset.]

             We thus  take particular note of  the main  focus of  concern in analysing the family’s background  when Winston  writes   ”…when we come to  John, ancestor of the present Churchills of Munston, and to Roger…etc ” (as above),  this ancestor, an earlier  John Churchill, would  likely   be one living in  early Tudor times  - 1520 to 1540s, say,  and so probably the  gt-gt-grandfather  of those Churchills  ‘presently’ then resident there  -  (at that latter  mid-Dorset manor) - a century or more later - ca  1650-60s (as suggested above) - when Winston wrote those words.   HE seemed  aware  of there being such an earlier or ‘separate’ branch of the family – presently then still at such a place - but not very certain  about  its name or location, nor exactly how that earlier ancestor John Churchill (somehow related to Roger) may have fitted in,  nor when and where all this happened.   All rather vague and tenuous.                    

              One had assumed, after reading Winston’s early account,  that  the sale of the Somerset manor  (to the Jennings) – possibly at a loss - was partly resolved  by Roger  Churchill  conveniently  marrying this  now allegedly widowed heiress  - Jane Megges (nee Peverell) and so acquiring (or re-acquiring ?) that indebted estate.    The new family may then  have moved and  settled (from that Somerset manor) to this  later family-owned manor - at ‘Munston, Dorset  (where that  earlier John Churchill had seemingly already settled  a little previously (beginning the shift from Somerset -  so further consolidating  a branch of the family allegedly already recently there -  ie  in mid-north Dorset, say, as seemingly described - being reasonably quite close to Wooton Glanville,  where Winston had later lived.  Well, this was certainly the general impression  gained on first reading (the earlier Winston)’s  rather confused  account – with its ‘suspicious, shady  and disquieting’  implications, as he himself described them   - of admitted uncertain validity.

            All these developments  would have been before the eventual Elizabethan era – from the 1550s-70s, say,  and continuing  later into the  mid-1600s - with  this seeming mid-south  Dorset  branch of the Churchills, having previously held property in  both Somerset and Devon  before that.  Some connection via these  ‘Munston Churchills’  to those of nearby Wooton Glanville, seemingly  in more central Dorset also , and to the later ‘re-ownership’ of  the ancient ‘Churchill’ manor,   in  Somerset,   all seemed (on the face of  it)  to be a  most reasonable,  if  a little  confused,  scenario and conclusion – at least to follow up.     And yet and yet…    

OTHER SOURCES.

           Since writing the foregoing, we have acquired further data on the family to help fill in several gaps, inconsistencies and that suspected connection – which now appear separately below (rather than seeking gradually to merge or integrate  such new material into Winston’s original but often  uncertain conceptions, understanding  and structure).  There may thus be some over-lap, repetition and necessary revision   in our new account  - to be  given below. 

             Additionally, we shall have the important benefit of an earlier  biography of ‘John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough’, complied from many sources, including the archives at Blenheim (in Oxfordshire),  written  in 1818,  by one William Coxe.   This was originally intended to be written about 1740   by one of two  respected  historians of the day - suggested to Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough in her widowhood - with a grant of £1000  – as desired by her  but, for whatever reason,  had apparently never materialised.*    With the support of a later  (3rd ) Duke of Marlborough however (an inheritable  title), Coxe  ultimately took on this long neglected  project himself.  His effort  included a limited section on the family’s origins which we now incorporate into  our present re-analysis and understanding  - gained from many  other sources as well. 

   [*  It has been subsequently discovered however that such an earlier  history had in fact been so produced – by one ‘Thomas Lediard, Esq,  FRS’  - dedicated to an even earlier (2nd)  ‘Duke of Marlborough’ – Lord Charles Spencer – in 1743.  Its contents appear to be suspiciously similar to those of Coxe which would suggest that Lediar’s preceded that version..  We  shall  now seek to utilise them both without distinction  unless something stands out that merits separate identification (as by the insertion of either  [Cx]  and/or [ Ld]),  as appropriate.  And, more recently, we have become aware of the source of seemingly much of this same material - from an even earlier source – the Complete Baronage - by George Cockayne of 1727  and, especially,  its 1812 extension  (the ‘Peerage’), by Collins and Brydges.

          We  thus  usefully begin our genealogy (again) on the bssis of at least 5 new sources–  as follows:     

THE EARLY CHURCHILL GENEALOGY (2)  –  ca 1000  to 1500.

         One might reasonably assume that the above Thomas's ’ eldest son William Churchill (born about 1518,say,) would have automatically inherited the main property [Manor]  in Rockbeare – which would have been legally confirmed earlier and   so not be mentioned formally in the Will.    As such, it would presumably continue to be the seat of that  senior line of the Churchill family per se – (being still in Devon).  We can’t be certain whether the name shown for his daughter Beaton) was her forename or possibly her married surname.  It would be helpful (if it was a surname and there was a Beaton Will left by either her husband or her Beaton father-in-law.  [Note: We later came across a Churchill daughter given this same name in 1604, born to a GEorge Churchill in Ottery St Mary nearby. He would seem to be one of THomas's grandsons born about the 1570s.]

It seems odd that Thomas apparently had a son ‘Robert’ who wasn’t included in his list of assigns (sons)  initially;  should it therefore have actually read ‘George’ instead (or even vice versa) ?  (Robert could even have been  a son-in-law, as they were often referred to as ‘son’ at the time,)  We can appreciate the naming of a grandson as Charles Chyrchill , as that name was rather significant relatively recently in the family. 

           It seems quite possible that the name of the wife of Thomas (of the Will) was Iseult (often then  pronounced as ‘Isote’) and likely spelt phonetically  as such  but,  wrongly transcribed later as  ‘Ibote’ – with  the internal S of that name (often written in many words then in an exaggrated way - essentially as a long thin capital S – which was then wrongly transcribed as a small case  ‘b’ from the original Will or its abstract (when being typed).  We may note that all the male forenames reflect names frequently seen both before and since within this Churchill families  of Devon and Dorset [We think in particular of those found later in such as Muckleford (in Bradford Peverell), the Comptons and the Bredys – likely via the agency of a Bartlett; see later.]

          We might reasonably conclude that,  as Thomas  then had at least two grandsons,  he  was quite possibly the homas we assumed to be bon  about 1494, married by 1516, had issue around 1518 to 1530, say,  and grandchildren about 1545-60 - before dying  in 1577.   He thus fits very well our above described elder son ThomasChurchill (Jnr) (with a wife Iseult),  and with a younger brother William Churchill, born himself around 1496, who would likely  marry  by ca 1518).  The elder brother Thomas  did indeed have issue as suggested – producing  his own eldest son William  (about 1518, say) who, as Roger’s first cousin, would  become  ‘son and heir’  of  the still senior Rockbeare  line and property  - as of   1577.   His eldest son in turn would likely be born in the 1560/70s and inherit in his turn.  There would  thus still  be 'Churchills  ‘of Roackbeare' and area’  (and/or of Devon per se) into the 1600s  presumably,  including, I believe, one or two Clergymen named Peter Churchill).  [W shall seek to better clarify these relationships in a subsequent pedigree. Their descendants appear to be those eventually noted in the Civil registrations of births, deaths and marriages in such as Ottery St Mary (Honiton Registration District) and/or Exeter - after 1837.  Moreover, some local church registrations became available from 1538 and should provide further  confirmation or leads to same.

[We have recently discovered another Will which should help filll in sunsequent genertions. It was written by a George Churchill - of Rockbeare, Yeoman - in 1659, a year before his death there in 1660. In it, he makes reference to his wife Mary and sons Thomas, William, George and Peter Churchill, leaving them bequests of several Hundred Pounds in total. We would assume there would be at least two intervening generations in Rockbeare between Thomas (died 1577) and this George (died 1660) with his 4 sons likely born ca 16330s-'40s. We would hope to locate any Church registrations, Taxation records, Militia lists and/or Will references eo assist us to this end.

          We may 'kill two birds with one stone' in this quest if we could integrate such knowledge with that pertaing to the comparable two geneaions of the Sainthill family. They were briefly referred to above having eventually settled at Brad pre-1500, more to the South-east. They seem to have subsequently held property in Rockbeare - long after the Churchills arrived there - but under what jurisdiction seems uncertain. The Churchills' status in this regard also becomes less certain after about 1600.

The CHURCHILLs and SAINTHILLs of ROCKBEARE.

           We have already considered the presence of the Churchills in Rockbeare as descended from surviving third son William Churchill (ca 1375-1430) who had apparently settled there by ca 1400, immediately next door, south of their forner Manor in Broadclyst. It appears that they already had some interests in Rockbeare - as Tenants-in Chief - after purchasing its main Manor from the Bassets or the Fulfords (as we understand but the Abbey of Canonsleigh also held some of it then). The Churchills were still iving there after 1600. But then, so were the Sainthills seemingly; but, who actually owned what, and from when ?

          The unusual surname 'Sainthill' seems to have evolved from an earlier Anglo-Saxon one - from before the Conquest -from a name such as 'Sweyne-atte-Hill', say, later becoming such as Swayntill and eventually Sainthill - by the mid-1400s. [One has noticed names such as 'John-ate-Wode' (Wood) gradually become John 'Atwood', or such as 'Harold-atte-Hil' becoming Harold 'Athill' (often noted in Norfolk).] Later, and less properly, 'Sainthill' sometimes morphed into suach as 'Saint Hill' and even 'St. Hill' - with their saintly connotations of rectitude and virtue. Later possessors (as Peter Sainthill 1) seem to have e felt a need to reflect or at least adopt those implications.

           We may obtain a clearer perspective on the family if we begin rather earlier - with the aid of a remarkably thorough account of them peblished in London in 1844 by a much later descendent - one Richard Sainthil, RN. His book has the rather unrevealing title of 'Olla Podrida' which refers to a culinary concoction of many different meats and vegetables that remain after being boiled up together and the resulting 'soup' poured off. What's left is said to be 'almost edible' and, only at the end of this lengthy discourse of the book's many topics does he detail for the reader the recipe for the obscure dish of its title - with the hope they will find the book's contents a little more palatable.

          To exemplify the book's wiide range of contents, its first 100 or so pages are devoted entirely to an analysis of the silver coins minted in the 1600s in Exeter. By pages 290 to 350 or so, he then provide an account of his famiiy's history, if scattered in different sections, after which he also does so (rather more briefly) for that of the 'Aclands of Kilverton' (in the north of Broadclyst Hundred). This is possibly relevant in that his own family appears to have had its early centre of gravity in neighbouring Honiton (and later in 'Clyst Honiton' further weet - by the time of Edwwards II and III (ie during the1300s).

          The evidence for this early location of his family is provided by scattered records of the early Parliaments. Reprsentation of the English in Parliament, before about 1400, was provided for various main towns in different counties, or simply for the county itself. We find that for Devon, a name that appears several times (for different Parliaments, under a given Monarch) was that of one Walter Swaynthull who was said to have resided near Honiton abd later in 'Clyst Honiton', Devon. Near the end of the regn of Esward II and throughout that of Edward III (ca 1330-1380), Walter Swayntill, possibly a father and son, represented Devon and/or Exeter in 7 or 8 different Parliaments. The spelling of the name - crucially with the 2nd letter always being a 'w' - followed by vowels 'a', 'e' , 'ay' or 'ey', and the final 3 letters typically being 'till', 'hull' or 'hill'. Before the Conquest, we may recall that an earlier Abglo-Saxon leader was King 'Cnut', whose father was King Sweyne, after whom Cnut would nname one son 'Swayne'. Today. we have Swain and Sven; These were all definitely not Norman ! But, by the later 1400s, that previously invariable 'w' seems to have been purposely dropped - the name even becoming 'Sayntall', at one point. That simple expedient seems to have shifted their confidence rowards peeomulgating a Norman descent.

           We are next told that Walter's brother Reginald Swayntnill held propery in the parish of Aulscombe, called 'Wadhays',(as had their father and grandfather apparently) from the time of Edward 1st (ca 1270-307) or earlier - as conveyed to them from Henery de Boteler (Harlein MSS 2410) and that Walter later paid Subsidy Tax on it in 1323. [A Devonshire Association article on Wadhays describes both Reginald and Walter as 'de Sweynthill' nand places its location 2 miles norh-west of Honiton (see www.devonassoc.org.uk and link to Wadhhays). Their ancestors had thus come south - from a hamlet or farm in Kentisbeare called Swayntill or similar (and later, as Ssinthill, it still exists today). [I fiknd it very difficult to account fot its evolution from that earlier Sazon form, or similar, to its present form; one wonders when that 'w' was dropped. and by whom ?] Walter had a daughter 'Joane' who married William de Heaton of 'Old Port' to whom Wadnays was later conveyed (or inherited?) (ca 1350?) and so was left in turn to their daughter, also Joane, and future husband Richard Smaister (by about 1380, say), and then passed lineally to one Linpenny who sold it to a William Hurst of Exeter around 1425, and thece to a William Bodley, seemingly also of Exeter (this also from 'de la Pole's 'Devon').

          Just why this subsequent information is included is not made apparent. It may have implied that any unrecorded son of Walter (I've seen a William suggested) settled on a diffrent property that wasn't so well recorded as that of Wadhays. The line appears next to become re-esablished thereby further south, near Bovey Tracy, just beyond Exeter - quite possibly on property owned by the Courtenays, Earls of Devon, who dominated ownership thereabouts - only renting it ouit on Leasehold or Copyhold basis. That Wadhays itself was later acquired by one William Hurst of Exeter possibly indicates the family still had connections there which, we recall, Walter represented in Parliament some generations before. He ws said to be "well learned in the law" and so had liklely been educated in a Grammar Schol, or higher, associated with Exeyer Cathedral. We might usefully note that if Walter and his brother had come from a small family manor after which they and their ancestors were named (as located in Kentsbeare to the north, beyond Collompton), their futures (and hopefully that of some unrecrded male descendants) may well have continued south towards that major ciy, possiby via Clyst Honiton, which was at least closer to Exeter than Honiton or Aulscombe. One can't imagine the younger generations reversing their progress south to the City, to return to that earlier hamlet in Krntisbeare in the north.

           Our next useful finding in this regard (not known by our later Richard Sainthill RN in 1844) was a reference in the Narional Archives to 2 or 3 legal cases dated ca 1490s. One was C1/142/74 between a John Hake and his then wife Jhone (nee Maayne) as Plaintiffs, and John Seynthill, father of Richard Seynthill, late first husband of said Jhone, as Defendants, regarding Money promised to Jhone but not received, on her earlier marriage to said Richard Seynthill. The case produced 5 documents the dates for which apparently range from 1486 to 1515. There is also a record in the Devon Record Office (D1/508M/Koger/240) in respect of property in the Manor of South Teign in North Bovey parish conveyed to a John Flavell, possibly dated 26 Jan 1516. [I have not yet seen these documents.] Also relevant was an earlier case (C1/96/89) dated 1486 to 1493 wherein John Seynthill, Richard's said father, was said to then be 'of Moreton' (now Morton Hampsted) which conerned properties in 'A....ton' and 'South Teign' in North Bovey, was supposed to be settled on Jhone at her first marriage (to Richard) - which may have ended in divorce when they wereen't forthcoming. [I note another case, C1//28/33, with reference to Honiton and/or Aulscomce and to John Seythill. A John-atte-Wode (Wood) was also mentioned; Wode/Wood could become 'Woodland' or 'Woodbury', both nearby in south Devon today].]

           While our author did not know of the existence of such documents, nor their contents (as Moretonhampsted) , he did know of another frequntly suggested location of the marriage aof his namesake ancestor Richard Sainthill to Jhone Mayne in which. oddly, such as North Bovey and Moreton Hampstead are never mentioned. In this quite alternate view, the Richard who married Jhone Mayne of Exeter (where thry lilrely married), is shown insead as being 'of Sainthill' (formerly Swayn-at-hill ?),that hamlet or farm in Kentisbeare, some 14 miles north-east of Exeter, and thus not one 8 miles or less south-west of same - with Bovey, Teign and Moreton all nearby. Quite a difference. He also knew that from Peter, Richard's elder son, descended the senior line of the later Sainthills and from his second son, Edward, the junior branch likewise (of which he was then himself the main descendant; the senior branch having died out in the male line about a century before he was born). Much attention was paid by historians to that senior line and just where it originated and/or settled, and what it may have accomplished. [I 'feel' (no more than that) that said Peter, once settled at Bradninch, heard about that hamlet in nearby Kentisbeare (quite coincidentally) and promoted the idea that it was the origin of his family and thus somehow associated wuith Bradninch from much earlier tim (there being however absolutely no basis for this idea; there was no convenient 'drift' westward by 'de Swaytills' into that early Cornish Barony). One will leave it at that.

           Much less attention was paid to the junior line, however. Because of this disparity, we were ourselves seduced along that senior line firstly and thus, as said Peter Sainthill had moved into London-based activites centred on MIddle Temple and 'legal Lomdon, including some education at that Inn of Court (which seems not to hav been completed; (he History places a ? before its Middle Temple reference in his case), he had nevertheless made some influential contacts there, including help in getting an obscure west-country seat to contest as an MP. It was for that reason that we were at least able to take advantage of the much more organised and trustworthy facility (now online) called the' 'History of Parliament' than was avialble in Rchard Sainthil's day (in Victorian times).

           Peter Sainthill did gain his seat in that pbscure Cornish oconstituency (of Grampound, only recntly t enfranchised to warrent 2 members; later to be referred to as one of the 'Rotten Boroughs). So there wwas indeed an entry for him in the said History. But its information turns out not to be consistent with the view promoted by his later family (and various Devon 'Sources') with respect to their more northerly (Bradninch (and area) origins. We may thus quote and paraphrase the HIstory's entry :

      "Peter Sainthill was born before 1514, son of Richard Sainthill of Moreton Hampstead, Gent, by Jhoane, daughter of Richard Mayne of Exeter. Richard Sainthil died 9 Dec 1525. Peter was possibly educated (after Grammar School in Exeter?) at ?Middle Temple, an Inn of Court in London and eventually married (firstly) on 26 Nov 1552,aged about 40, Catherine, daughter of Sir Humphrey Browne (of that Inn), she the widow ofa Richard Townesend (who died 1551, without issue), and (secondly), ca 1558) Juliana, daughter of William Shine of Bradley, Berkshire (she too having married before, twice). They had 2 sons and a daughter." We will consider other aspects of elder brother Peter Sainthill's career and such issue after first consolidating and clarifying our understanding about the origin of his father's family - apparently in the Moreton Hampstead - Bovey Tracy area in south-west Devon (around 1460-1490)- this location having nothing whatsoever to do with Peter's eventual residence at more northernr Bradninch - in the 1550-60ss. This will be discussed later - afte considering the family's quite different and more likely origins, as well as the junior line descended from second son Edward Sainthill (born by ca 1518, say).

           We saw above that Richard's father was a John Saynthill when involved in litigation in the 1480-90s. Conveniently, we find that one website shows this man's family to have been of North Teign, and Bovey. A John Saynthill (born South Teign ca 1450) and wife Joane Wyke, appear thereby to have married around 1470-80(as estimated) and had issue in North Bovey - including Richard Sainthill ca 1480 who seems to have settled later in Moreton Hampstead some miles inland nearer Dartmoor. John himself is shown as born to a Walter Seynthill around 1425 (with said Walter possibly born to an earlier William of that line (who may have named hWalter after the earlir MP). We have no data on wwho of the family first appeared in this region south-ewest of Exeter - mostly ownwed by the Courtenays (Earls of Devon), from the 1250s. We should get a better picture of the events affecting Richard Saunthill's marriage and property around the years 1500+ (before his apparent early death in 1525) - once we can examine that litgation with the man who seems to have married as his first wife Jhone/Joane Sainthill (nee Mayne)..

           Richard Sainthil RN ubnderstood he descended from the junior branch of the family - ie from Eddward, second son of that earlier Richard Sainthill. Edward was somehow settled in Rockbeare - from an unknown date and in an unknown property there. But Richard could find no confirning evidence about this. Fortunately, he was eventually asissted in this by one John Putman, Esq, of the College of Arms, in 1827, who held the College's position of 'Portcullis'. He produced a useful pedigree which showed that Edward Sainthill married Elizabeth Yarde, daughter of ohn Yarde of a landed family of Honiton by about 1545. [We note that this date is about when many ex-Monestery properties were coming onto the market.] They had a son Richard, likely named after Edward's father, around 1550 and he in turn married, as 'Richard Sainthill of Rockbeare, Gent', to 'Ffyda Harlowing of Sidmouth, Genntlewoman' and did so in Rockbeare in 1592; this is only known (despite Rockbeare's arly registers having been destroyed or lost) by virtue of the marriage having also been recorded in the register of Sidmouth's church because Fryda was of an important local family there. This proves most fortuitous in that we learn thereby that the Sainthills of Rockbeare were not themselves Esquires of Rockbeare, but Gents only (as would be their parents and children presumably, thus indicating they held only Lease- or Gopy-hold property tnhere (if indeed they held any). [However, it is possible that it would only be Peter 1 who was able (could afford) to buy Free- or Lease-hold ex-Monestery (Canonsleigh Abbey) property - if some time earlier (ca 1550-60, say).] Richard and Fryda had an elder son Francis Sainthill in Rockbeare about 1595 who married Susanna Pyne of Wimple (a neighbouring parish just to the east) by about 1620 and had a son Nicholas Sainthill ca 1625.

          We may note here that it would be around this time (ca 1625-35) that George Churchill (possibly a son of a Thomas Churchill Jnr, Thomas Snr being he of the 1577 Will) would likely also marry loccally and soom have his 4 sons ca 1635-45,, as referred to in his 1659 Will, then seeming adults. Francis Sainthill died quite young (ca 1640 as estimated) and his son Nicholas (then about 16) decided to seek employment - as a Mariner - sailing ouut of Topsham, near Sidmouth, where he would settle with his own family after marrying late (ca 1673) 'Elizabeth Weber of Exeter, Spinster'. George's 4 sons, if a little younger than said Nicholas, would probably all know him as he left for Topsham to become a Mariner, as they would liater knmow his progeny as well - son John (1676-1730) and grandson, also John (bn 1703), both Mariners of Tposham in their time. In George Churchill's reent Will, he left eldest son Thomas just Fve Pounds - probably because he would also inherit the Leaehold of the family property (as well as benefittng in other respects (see below); Next son George Jnr was left One Hundred Pounds (50 Pounds of which represented money owed to George Snr); third son Peter also received One Hundred Pounds, from which £50 was to be paid to a Johan Orchard(?) of Bradnynch, Widow, to whom he was somehow Bound so to do (she possibly being his sister), and to 4th and youngest son Ambrose Churchill, he also left One Hundred Pounds. He had two daughters, Mary and Johan, ro whom he left Five Pounds apiece and several grandchildreen (unnamed) would receive Twentie Shillings each .Their existence indicates that their parents were likely born around 1625-35 and msarried in the 1650s, say. They would thus be contemporaries of Winston Churchill and his son John (born 1650), of neighbouring Dorset.

          IThe Sainthills thus ceased being residents of Rockbeare as a viable family there from around that time 1650-60 (the lattter year being when George Churchill died there) and my earlier awareness that the last Sainthill there, described as the 'late Mrs Sainthill', was finally identified - as 'Susanna Sainthill (nee Pyne), widow of Francis and mother of Nicholas. Their relationship, if any, with the 'Churchills of Rockbeare' had confused me - having never come across that surname before and wondering if it had in fact been a mistake for 'Churchill'. It wasn't (as I now appreciate). They seem to have died out there around 1650 thus ending the junior line of the 'Sainthills - that of Rockbeare' (said by one source (Historic England) to have 'acquired Rockbeare from Canonsleigh Abbey at the time of the Reformation' - a rather ambiguous period by which to place an event; it was likely in about 1550. After about a centuury there, theey continued in a sense at nearby Topsham - as Mariners (not Manor owners), until the time of our author - during Victoria's reign. However, according to national defence needs, Merchant Mariners, especially its Officers, were often required to transfer to the Naval service and the next two Sainthills in the descent opted for this latter route (as did the younger sons of the Gentry ('Gents') generally in those days, often from the age of 12, since it typically led to senior Naval Officer standing, being equivalent to Esq status, something highly sought then and not otherwise attainable by maany. Our author would have this ranking (as did his fsther who had displayed heroic bravery in his day). Subsequently, various cousins and nephews gradually spread the name Sainthill into many other occupations and regions.

           We may continue with George Curchill Snr's Will of 1660: He states next that 'Whereas I hace recently pruchased two 'Reversions' situated in Rockbeare (that is, properties he bought that would revert to him only when the former owner(s) died) - the first, called 'Ford', on the death of a Clement Perryman and the other after the death of Michael Fillimore, called 'West Parke', which (latter} said Reversion and Tenement I made my sonne Thomas Purchasor thereof, as by its Deeds doth and may appeare, And whereas I have also Bound n my son Thomas - to myself, my Executor and my Assigns in a Bond of Three Hundred Pounds which requires him to 'Devise, Assign, Grant and Sell On his interest and rights to such Estste unto Ambrose my sonne - as by the said Bond apeareth. And now my Will and Desire is that if my sonne Ambrose do Marry and hereafter do procure and settle himself in a convenient estae elsewhere, then my Will is that Thomas shall well and truly pay Ambrose Two Hundred ans Fiftie Pounds and then he and his Executor and asstgns may have and enjoy the said Reversion and Tenement aforesaid. Item - All resdue of my Goodes, etc I do bequeathee to Mary my wife whom I make my sole Executor And I appoint and charge my sonnes Fhomas, George and Peter to aid and assist their Motherr in the best manner they can to see my Will thus performed. Signed: Geo: Churchill Wirmessed by a 'Wolliam Sottle'. The Will was proved in London on 7 Novemnber 1660 (the year the Monarchy was re-stored). We find that the value of money in the mid-1600s was about 1000 times what it is today. George Churchill's estate was thus worth about $100,000 in today's money. If it had been Freehold in his father's day, say, and he had a similar family (with 3 to 5 sons), he may well have been forced to sell by about the 1630s in order to set them up on their own smaller proberties. George was in a similar situation, if now as a Yeoman, and was just about abole to provide his sons with adequate means to afford their own, if smaller, properties, possibly with some help from the perents of their respective brides in this same social level. The recent Civil wat had left manny families less secure. Youngest son Ambrose was probably still too young to marry (at ca 16-17, say, and so born around 1642). We may reasonably eatinate the eldest Thomas son was thus about 10 or 12 years older.

           Our original concern had been to discover which Sainthills had lived in Rockbeare and whether they co-existed there with the senior branch of Churchills after ca 1520 or so - when the latter family's junior branch began to migrate towards Dorset. If so, they would certainly have known each other and may have shared documentation that could help reveal the identities nand dates of their various respective menbers. Sadly, we are now aware that the crucial church registers for Rocckbeare are lacking for most of the period of concern. It would now appear that the status of the 'Sainthills of Rockbeare' was that of haaving acquired (ytpically for a small cost) the 'manor of 'the local church' only of that parish (as previously held seemingly by the Abbey before 1545) which would generate a rather small income - as collector (but not recipient) of such annual Tythes. Such 'sub-manors' became established for many churches when the Freehold owners of the main Manor in such a Parish were some distant Abbey or absentee Landowner. The latter's income from the Manor per se was that of the much greater rents paid by the Copyholders (or Leaseholders) of its many farms. They would also control tthe advowons for the Church incumbent. Who would be responsible for the absence of so many years of the registers we cannot say. Are the records of the main Manor of Rockbeare still extant, one womders ? Who holds them ? Later holders include the Duntze and Porter families in the 17th and 18th centuries. Did they retain all their prior Lease histories ?

           We can see now that the overlap of the presence of both Sainthills and Churchills in Rockbeare would cover roughly the years 14545 to 1660 or so. That is, from the arrival of Edward (and/or Peter 1) Sainthill until the move by Nicholas Sainthill to Topsham. The Churchills had arrived much earlier, around 1400+, and appeared to stil be there, or nearby, after the 1670s but in what capaciy is difficult to determine. Information on wnen and who were born and/or married to whom, or died, is lacking over much of this period - for both families. Wills and litgation records provide the only likely sources although Taxs and MMilitia lists may provide some. We can see that the two families were both in Rockbeare during the Civil War period (ca 1640s and during the following decade of the Commonwealth.) Any such information, from those sources, if and when discovered, will hopefully be added here:

           Meanwhile, here are a few records from the National Archives that pertain to Litigations between members of George Churchill's family (as himself, Peter, Ambrose and Thomas sand various locals in Rockbeare or Otterey St Mary. We place theeir reference numbers in chronological order (years shown in bracketts):

          C7/264/44 (1607); C5/399/75 (1613; C2/ Jas1/C15/65 (1623-1625); C6/24/105 (1636); C10/27/64 (1654);C10/473/48 (1663); C10/156/87 (1670); C8/203/34 (1676); C10/411/31 (1681); DRO 3839M//T11(1682); C10/539/8 (1687); ADM 106/482/329 and/330 (1696); C10/413/80 (1698); E134/4Geo 1/Mich 3(1718) and M/ich 4 (1719) - when Rev Peter Churchill was Rector of Shobroke parish of which the litigation concerns; abd, finally, DRO 6071Z/F//2 (1732). None of these are currently available on-line, as they haven't been digitised (unlike PCC Wills).

           Meanwhile,to complete our coverage of the Sainthill family, if rather more condensed, we consider finally their so-called Senior line - as descended from elder brother Peter Sainthill 1 (born ca 1512, say). He likely arrioved in London around ca 1535-40, as estimated. As with his younger brother Edward, we are not aware with what family they grew-up during the 1520s-'30s and thus how their immediate ffutures were influenced and determined. The litigation documents involving their mother Jhone may reveal some things, recalling that their father Richard had apparently died as early as 1525 and their psrents may have divorced. Somehow, Peter got to London and maybe entered Middle Temple by 1538 while Edward and his young wife settled in Rockbeare - having acquired a role in respect of the 'manor' - possbly of the church there with its presumably modest 'living' (as collector of its Tythes; a kind of ''sub-Steward'. We womder if Richard's fther John may have had any suuch influence in arranging both these initial placements for his grandsons ? Unless, it followed from the sale of some relevant property there when the MOnesteries were dissolved (see later). In any case, we at least kdiscover various items of nterest from the History of Parliament entry for Peter Sainthill.

          It is hard for us to appreciate the degree to which 'yuoug-Gents-about-town' anticipated maturity in earlier times. With various young lawyers as friends, Peter would no doubt take advantage of any promising possibilities that so presented themselves. The History shows that after possibly attending Middle Temple, he evetually married, firstly, in 1552 Cartherine, daughter of one Sir Humphrey Browne, an emmminent judge of the day. How this came about and was delayed until he was aged about 40, after 15 years in London, making such legal and political contacts (ca 1535-50, say) is rather difficult to justify. But, we may recall that this was a period of great flux in royal, governmental and public circles. The Dissolution of the Monesteries ca 1535-45s suddenly freed up the availability of quality property at suspiciously low prices- if one knew the right people (as Robert Bartelot, Sir William Petre and Sir John Tregonwell) - ie in Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, respectively. Peter Sainthill seems to have known them all ! According to the entry in the Pariamenrtry History covering Peter's biography, he had indeed "bought former Monestery properties to the tune of £600...." an enormous anmount in today's terms. Where did a man with his rather modest bakground get this sum ? His father had died young, his mother had re-married (apparently before her first husband's death - after a divorce) - implying mmoney problems; he would thus have little or no money after leaviing his assumed Grammar School, ikely in Exeter, around 1525 or so.

          The History does refer to a small property [Leaseheld?] he may have inherited in Moreton Hampstead earlier which, if sold and with the capital raised (including some borrowings; his family still wed moneylenders in London significant sums after the War) osed to purchse a number of other smaller ex-monestery properties (also mentioned in the History), effectively at a discount, then re-selling them at profit, he could more understandably then afford that major purchase such as at Bradninch and/or Rockbeare (held previously by yhe Abbey of Canonsleigh) which itself had been purchased by about 1540 by one Richard Grenville - a Cornwall MP (with a prtner) for £1170. The institution 'Historic England' is quoted as noting that Rockbeare, amongst hundreds, was held (from the Conquest) by the Bishop of Bath and Wells who gave it to Matilda, Countess of Gloucester, who later gave it to Canonsleigh Abbey on its foundation about 1284. Itappears that this Abbey was suppressed from ca 1536 during the Dissolution of the Monesteries by Henry VIII's Agents (as Tregonwell and Bartlett)and soon sold on to Richard Grenville (of an influential Cornish family) and partner before the Sainthills acquired it or whatever part of it Grenville wished to sell on. Alternatively, Peter Sainthill may have used most of his money to re-build Bradninch House (as described later) around 1545-50. It was a former 'Barony' still held by the Duchy of Cornwall with quite possibly various Deputy positions required by its absentee Lanlord - to help run it. Peter would no doubt have heard about tbth of these possibilities when repreaenting his small Cornish constituency.

           It also refers to him applying for a Coat of Arms about then (ca 1546) based it seemed solely on his exagerated self-description of his virtue and honour, which was somehow successful although the History pointed out that such virtue wasn't its own reward in his case compared with that soon gained by his ex-Monestery profits. As his position improved, he somehow acquired a role pertining to the Admiralty and when stationed nar Poole in Dorset had occasion to write to Admiral Edward Seymour (related to Jane Seymour, ex-Queen) pointing out to him that a Ship had gone aground on the Isle of Wight nearby, and signing himself 'your assured friend'. The significance of this is not made explicit but they do point out that Admiral Seymour, known for having enriched himself through such 'found treasure', and his brother, both subsequently 'disappeared' (in fact executed, I beleve, ca 1550). In any case, that new 'rotten Borough' in Cornwall (Grampound) had recently been enfranchised and required its second MP, the choice of Peter Sainthill being accounted for by virtue of his friendship with Admiral Seymour; he was thus returned for same in 1547. [Those returned for most seats then generally had such influential backers or had close ties with the area; Peter had no connections then in Cornwall. However, he soon would have - ain the form of another local MP who happened to be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall) - an influential Lawyer-cum-Treasurer with a Middle Temple background.

           It would seem to be only then when Peter heard about something called the Duchy's borough of Bradninch (an ex-Cornish Barony, albeit situated just beyond Cornwall) - in neighbouring Devon. Like Roakbeare, with its often absentee landlord, it required a Steward or even Sub-steward, to look after the responsibilites of the Church there (as collecting its Tythes, etc). The Freehold for the Manor per se was of course held by the Duchy (in perpetuity) and thus the Stewrd would typically be a 'Genleman' (not an Esq holding his own Freehold estate). But, there was a large House there that needed re-nuilding. Peter soon moved in - and re-built it. 2 or 3 yeras later, Middle Temple's renown Judge, Sir Hemphrey Browne's daughter Katherine's first husbsnd had died and in 1552, she re-married - yo Peter Sainthill whose prospects had recently improved. He was then 40. He may have stood at the next election in 1553 but declied or avoided seeking such influence (since it might be a reflection on his father-in-law who had stood security for an MP who was in dis-favour and so ran successfully instead for another Cornish seat a year later - a small port near Plynouth). His first wife had recently died without issue and he re-married in 1560 - a Juliana Shine (a widow who had married twice before) with whom he finally had 2 sons and a daughter in the 1560s - a little before Peter was declared Insane, in 15661571 (at Bradninch).

          Peter's elder son, Peter 2,was born in Bradninch in 1561 where he would no doubt inherit his father's roles with the church and/or the Barony there, collecting the Tythes (but not the Manor's rents which of course went to the Duchy, the Freehold owners (in perpetuity) - to pdrovide income for the Prince of Wales (just as today), as part of the latter's income. As his fatther Peter 1 was becoming ill during his childhood, and died when he was still onlnly 10, there may have been some oversight by uncles (and his mother) for himself and his younger boether during the late 1560s/early 1570s. After education at Middle Temple in the 1580s, he would marry Elizabeth Martin ca 1590 and have several children, including a Peter Sainthill (3) in 1593, well known later in the fsmily as 'the Cavalier'. Peter 2 would also not survive his sons' youth by much, dying in 1618. His eldest son, Peter Sainthill 3, 'the Cavalier', would fight on the Royalist side in the coming Civil War - ca 1643-'46 - just as John Churchill (1593-1659) and his son Winston (<1620-1688) would also do. Like the former, rhey too had to pay their Fines for being on the losing side). But, unlike the Churchills, Peter first sought refuge in Italy, in 1646, after the surrender by the Royalists in Exeter, having first written an account of his estate and debts on which his Fines would be later calculated and paid - by his son and heir Samuel Sainthll - by ca 1652.

           Peter 3 had been elected an MP (for Tiverton) in both the 'Short' and 'Long' Parliaments, held in April and November that year. Once Cromwell had gained power, ca 1643, Peter was disbarred from holding any further Office of State. His support of the KIng continued however, through 1644/45 when he provided him with a night's hospitality at Bradninch in July 1644 and Camping facilities for his Army in Sept 1645 before their last stand in Exeter where General Fairfax surrendered in Apr 1646. Peter had already left for Italy with a Pass provided by Fairfax. Once in Legorno, he soon contracted a serious illness and died there in1548. His unmarried son and heir Samuel moved in to the (still Leased?) House in Bradninch.and seemed to assume an Esq status forhwith, but I have no objective evidence of its justification or not. [One has more recently appreciated that since the 1600s (and probably for some time before), the stylimg - as Yeoman, Gentleman or Esquire - signifying levels of society below that of Knight in the Feudal system ca 1100 to 1500, was based on rather more than just property ownership (vs renting). Moreover, it was increasingly determined by social convention with no mandatory or legal basis ultimately, so was inceasingly adopted simply as appeared fitting - amongst one's peers; no more and no less.]

           A diary was kept by Peter 3, and was continued by his son Smuel, relating to the family's capital and debts on whhich basis they were to be Fined accordingly - by the the Commonwealth Parliament. It was to equal one third of its net value. This seemed to have been eventually settled by Samuel wno would likely have sold off elements of property, possibly acquired by his father or grandfather from their ex-monestery holdings and borrowings. But Samhel remained unmarried and without issue, so by his Will (1708) he initially intended to leave the estate Of still unknown property holdings, if any) to his neaarest relative (of the junior Rockbeare branch) but, falling out with the latter cousin , left it instead to another relatve, his nephew, Edward Yarde of Treasbeare (1637-1732), the unmarried son of his sister Dorothy and Thomas Yarde, then 71. Edward subsequently married, changed his surname to 'Sainthill' (by Act of Parliament), and had a son (ca 1712) and lived to 95 ! The son (seemingly an Edward) married (ca 1740) and left as his heiress, an Elizabeth Saithill (bn 1745), who married (ca 1765) a Rear Admiral Thomas Pearse (1749-1820) whose son George (1790-1851) married a lady fom Jamaica, a wealthy plantation and slave owner. These latter Sainthills and then Pearses were all 'of Bradninch House', in their day. A List of Freeholders in Devon (as per 1733) included one Edward Sainthill - 'of Bradninch, Esq' (!). The only other Devon Freeholder of this surname about then (1751) was a John Sainthill, Mariner - of the junior branch in Topsham.

          Sanuel makes just two Churchill references when reporting the family's estate accounts, including Rckbeare, as an extension of his father's searlier entries; that is, during the mid-1600s. One entry implies that after Peter 3's beother Edward Sainthill's line left Rockbeare, to settle in Toppsham, Samuel must have stepped in on Nicholas's departure to continue as Collector of Tythes, etc for the Rectory (or Vicarage?) there for he mentions receiving a small payment for same from one 'Churchill' [with no date shown] and, sadly, also no forename; it could well have been George. On the other occasion, he mentions this 'Churchill' from whom he then actually borrows some funds - "to allow me to pay certain expenses" for which he seems not to have had the ready cash. These account records were included in Ricahard Sainthill's much later book on the family. It seems posible that the Sainhill's connection with Rockbeare may have been more than Samuel simply stepping in to continue Nicholas's role regading the Church only (as Edward and his direct descendants seem to have done from about 1550).For they may have done as Leaseholders under Edward's elder brother Peter (a la 'primogeniture'). For we have located a Will for 'Peter Sainthil of Bradninch, Esq' (Wr. 1647 in Legorno and Pr. 1653) in london - by his brother Robert (who had already resided in Legorno for some time, as a Merchant, being younger than Samuel , I believe). In it, he refers twice to Rockbeare (almost as much as to Bradninch), if in some indecipherable context which one shall, in time, seek to interpret. It could rhelp resolve this matter. Significantly, he mentions his brother Robert many times but uncle Edward nor any cousins not at all. We can still see no basis for him being styled 'of Bradninch, Wsq' since rhe Freehold for Bradninch was held (only) by the Duchy of Cornwall. [But we now see that anyone might simply assume that styling. if it seemed acceptable and 'fitting' to one's peers.

           So, we haven't been able to deduce which Sainthills may have been resident in Rockbeare coincident with any Churchills ca 1600s, say); ie when they may both have lived there from the time of Edward Sainthill and his subsequent generations - whatever their respective stations in the parish - from ca 1550 to about 1650, when Nicholas left. We know from Thomas Churchill's Will of 1577, that Thomas left 3 or 4 Churchill sons (William, Thomas, George and possibly a Robert) and 2 such grand children (both Johns) and 1 gt-gradson (a Charles) but dates of birth and/or marriages for same remain very approximate. These would likely prove comparable in generation with those of Richard Sainthill(Snr)'s equivalents - in the succeeding 3 Peters, plus Edward, Richard and Francis. Samuel and Nicholas would be those of Bradninch and Rockbeare/Topsham, respectively, living into the 1700s. We do have 2 items concerning an apparently ?later George Churchill: his Will of 1660 and a reference to him being fined for something in the Civil war, later recscinded. Finally, from this ''pool' of Churchills would likely come thhose later of Ottery St Mary and area, just 2 miles to the east. From the Freeholder Lits for Devon we see that there were 6 such Churchills listed as follows: An oAmbrose Churchill was still in Rockbeare in 1721, likely George's son or grandson, as was a John Churchill; a Charles Churchill was an Attorney at Law in Ottery St Mary that same year (requiting an Apprenticeship) - where an Edward Churchill also resided even earlier - in 1711 and a William Churchill was there as late as 1762. There was a Peter Churchill in Shobrooke (near Crediton, a little to the north-west) - in 1711 and 1721 - possibly the Vicar there and son of our earlir Peter. . There were also tthose Churchills noted in Dorset in connction with Roger Curchill ca 1540s-50s in Bradford Peverell (Muckleford end), Lt Bredy and the Comptons - whatever induced them to also migrate to that neighbouring county following the earlier William's move, with his sons Roger nad John ca 1525-35 or so.

---  ---  ---  ---  ---

            We may now return briefly to the events at Rockbeare before 1500 concerning those brothers Thomas and William Churchill (bn. there ca 1495). ) The elder brother, apparently Thomas, would be ready to marry about 1516, say - to an Isault Provencher (an almost unique surname in the area; did she, or her father, hold property? This Thomas was he of the Will of 1577 and William shortly after (ca 1518); both would live into their late 80s it woul seem. A union would likely be sought for the latter, younger brother - with the daughter of a family with moderate property - to combine (in value) with whatever, if any, William himself may already have been  provided  (as  a second son) -  from  his father’s or mother’s estate.   It appears that some such property was available – possibly via  Mary Creuse’s inheritance (if now in the Churchill’s gift)  located not much further east - near her (Mary's) father’s residence  at Wycroft Castle, Devon  (just a little north-east of Colyton) – very near that county’s eastern border with Dorset.  The de Broke family (as a Lord George Cobham)  held the chief manor there in the early 1500s.  What, if any, property the Creuses may have held there is uncertain.   This is not that far from  Catherston, Dorset  (long held by the Wadhams) – located  just across the Devon-Dorset boundary (near Lyme Regis).  Our Dorset Churchills (to be) - starting with this William (Thomas of Rockbeare's youger brother) seem to have settled there initially (as referred to in various earlier accounts, as by Collins) when first settling in east Devon and then in nrighbouring west Dorset - by virtue of these various family connections amongst the Creuses, Wadhams, Tylles and Churchills.  The bits and pieces of younger son William's line begin thus to fall into place!

         What Churchills, however, may already have been extant as far east as Dorchester (or even Corton/Waddon) in  south-east Dorset - as early as 1500, or before,  is also uncertain.  If any, from what line of Churchills might they have descended ?   And, to whom did they lead ?  In  any case, our story willl now focus entirely on the  foregoing second son   William Churchill  (bn ca 1496),  originally of Rockbeare, Devon  - and his  important subsequent Dorset descendants.  And so next we have: 

THE CHURCHILLS IN DORSET.

            The assuned younger brother of Thomas Churchill of Rockbeare   (1494 - 1577)  - ie  William Churchill (b ca 1496) - would marry Mary Creuse, daughter of Richard Creuse of  Wycroft Castle, in east Devon,  possibly about 1518.  [Note: Creuse was also spelt as ‘Crewse’, I believe.]  This may have been  before William  moved  further east  from Rockbeare  to the Colyton  area in that south-east corner of Devon – very near the Dorset border  (where Mary’s family had resided).  He and  any  family seem to have remained there only a short time however - before moving just over the border  - to  Catherston  Lewiston,  in west  Dorset, ca 1520 (as estimated) .  The Wadham family – a later one of whom  (Francis, with wife Dorothy) would famously established Wadham College, Oxford  (in 1610) -  appears to have owned manors in both these latter two parishes (and elsewhere, including possibly much further east - in the Portisham area, near Dorchester; see later).  

            William’s wife Mary (of the local Creuse family) was said to be related to the Wadhams. [Yes; her sister Elizabeth Creuse had  married John Wadham.]   William Churchill  would  thereby appear to have established the main Dorset branch of the Churchill family - from which, eventually, would  derive  a number of  illustrious  descendants.  He  is said to have died as late as 1583 - some miles further  east  in Dorset  - in the parish of  Piddlehinton,  aged an impressive 90 or so ! (Cx).    This is difficult to confirm (although his apparently older brother Thomas back in Rockbeare also lived to a good age - into his 80s).   William  left no Will  (located thus far) and the  relevant parish registers or Bishop’s Transcripts (if yet made) seem not to have  survived.   The suggested 1583 death could have applied instead to his third son, William Churchill Jnr (bn ca 1525-30).    We must stress that this account of William Churchill Snr and his assumed progeny is based on a number of disparate sources the veracity of which all require confirmation.  Reliable documentary evidence over this period would appear to be  rather  sparse, however.   But first, we describe his family:

          William Churchill (Snr) would,  by Mary (nee Creuse)  have at least three sons - Roger Churchill, his heir,  who would later be (briefly) ‘'of Bradford Peverell, Dorset, Esq'’ (born ca 1518, as estimated),  John Churchil of Dorchester, Draper -   bn ca 1520; he died quite young, in 1557, andWilliam Churchill (Jnr) (possibly settled later  in either Corton or  Pulston  in that county, Gent’ [bn ca 1525 or so ).   Awkwardly (for identification purposes), John would himself have two sons - named William (bn ca 1541) and John (bn ca 1547). For convenience, we shall therefore refer to the foregoing family as, respectively, William (Snr), father of  eldest son Roger and of his (William Snr's) two younger sons –   as John (I),  and  William (Jnr) while John (I)'s two sons will be referred to, in turn, as William (II) and John (II). The elder of John (I)’s  sons  William (II)  - bn 1541 -  was, by his last Will (1599),  to be buried in St Peter’s church in Dorchester and  appointed  his  son and heir, yet  another  John Churchill (III)), Gent (bn ca 1568),   to be his sole Exectutor.   [Note: These relationships are further confirmed  below.]  The latter  John (III), after residing in Fordington (on  the north edge of Dorchester)  would eventually be seated at nearby rural Muston in that same county (from ca 1612), thereby   becoming 'of Muston, Esq'.  John (I)’s younger son  John (II) - bn 1547) somehow acquired  the Manor at Corton (which we believe was already in the family but previously held by whom seems uncertain).   He  had only two daughters and his property (including Corton)  subsequently left the Churchill family on their marriages – one to a son of the Monun family (;ater Moon)– an equally ancient family originally from Normandy .]  

            It is quite possible that Roger’s  two younger brothers John (I) and (William (Jnr) were, according to Collins, born in  reverse order to that indicated above.     Finally, we report that the junior Churchill line that subsequently descended  from  ‘John Churchill (III) of Dorchester, Esq’ (bn ca 1568)  and  wife Eleanor (nee Meller),  via Muston eventually,  is said to have been ‘well depicted by Hutchins in his ‘History of Dorsetshire’.  That particular line is not, however, the  one  we wish to focus on here.  For that, we must return to William Snr’s eldest son Roger Churchill, and to Collins who continues]:   

        “Roger Churchill, Esq,  eldest son and heir of [said] William Churchill (Snr) - of Rockbeare, Gent  [and wife Mary Creuse], is then [gratefully] shown by Collins in his Peerage – as referred to above]  to have been   ‘of Catherston’,  Dorsetshire’, and, by his wife  Jane,  daughter of William Peverell of  Bradford Peverell, Esq  [allegedly ‘relict of Thomas Megges, Esq’,]  had a son Mathew Churchill of Bradford Peverell, Esq…who took to wife Alice Gould.”  

           [We pause here  in Collin’s account  to point out  that we believe that when Roger married Jane, in about 1542, say, she was in fact not then the relict (widow) of ….anyone… but, rather, was indeed still an unmarried Jane Peverell (bn ca 1520).  This is fully explained later.  Also, one must assume that Collins’  understanding of just where  this  Roger was then   ‘of’  - around  1535, say, (whether with or without his parents and siblings) -  and where  and when he soon married  JanePeverell  -  was itself  based on earlier trusted sources - known or seen by Collins.  We have since contributed to this aspect by discovering that the Manor of Catherston was shown in the British  History  site to have been previously settled by members [a younger son] of the Wadham family, otherwise formerly of Somerset,  and in particular by a John Wadham  who had,  at some point,  also married  one of the co-heiresses of Richard Creuse of Wycroft (as had our William Churchill  (Roger’s father).  

        They  would thus be effectively brothers-in-law(by about  1515-20 , say) and    William, Mary and their issue may well have then moved to this ‘brother-in-law’s Manor of Catherston, Dorset  –whether to rent  or lease a suitable property there.   Roger Churchill wwould then  be  appropriately described  as being ‘of Catherston’ – seemingly if not yet as an Esq, then as a yoiung Gent (ca 1538-40)  - just before marrying Jane Peverell – ‘of Bradford Peverell’, Dorset   recently held by her father William Peverell, Esq, who had recently died by  about 1525 (his Inq P M being in 1527).    Jane probably lived with her  mother (also Jane) and new step-tather – Sir John Mervyn - in Sherbone, Dorset  (his former abode) until about 1540, say, after which Jane and Roger likely married and resided at Bradford Peverell thenselves for  the following decade (1542-1552).  They would then both be described as  ‘of  that   Manor’ – Roger now  as its  ‘Esq’  -  until his early death there - about 1552, as we have estimated.    

          It would  be significant that the  two daughters of Richard Creuse of Wycroft, Devon (near its border with Dorset)  – Elizabeth  and Mary -  would marry, respectively, John Wadham of Catherston (ca 1516)  and William Churchill, formerly of Rockbeare (and later of Colyton),  both quite near Tylle House, Catherston and  Wycroft (ca 1520s-30s).   We must also recall  that other, slightly earlier, common denominator -  via the Tylle connection;  Grace Churchill (nee Tylle)’s sister (……?…..) seems to have married a Wadham in the previous generation. The three families were clearly mutually influential and relevant to one and other. ]   

      [We now continue with Collins’ account (generally without dates) and his reference to the wife of Roger and Jane’s only son -  Mathew Churchill (bn ca 1545) – which he shows to have been one]:   “…Alice, daughter of James Gould of Dorchester, Gent - by whom Mathew  was thence father of a Jasper Churchill [Srn)  of Bradford Peverell,  Esq.     Jasper, in turn,  married  Elizabeth, daughter of a  John ‘Chhaplet’  of Herringston, Esq. [whom we later concluded must in fact have been  a John Chaplin]  and, by her,  left two sons …John Churchill, Esq(to be) and  Jasper Churchill (Jnr), Gent  [We shall seek to apply apptopriate dates to all these events below.]

         Elder son  John Churchill, later of  of Minterne Magna, Dorset, Esq  became a member of Middle Temple and was married (in London) to Sarah, daughter and co-heir of Sir Henry Winstone  - of Standish,  [Gloucestershire]   by whom he had a son Winston Churchill,  born in London, in 1620,   while younger son Jasper Churchill Jnr  would marry…… and have  sons Jasper Jnr and  another  John Churchill, the latter to becomethe  a Knight and   eminent counsel in the reign of Charles II),  and who, by Susan,  daughter of Edmund Prideaux, Esq,  left 4 daughters, his co-heirs. He eventually bought the ancient Manor of Churchill  [in Somerset] from Richard Jenning, Esq, [in about 1652]  but, dying  in 1685, greatly in debt [after arranging costly marriages for his 4 daughters], his estate, amongst others, was soon sold  on [by about 1687, having been in the Churchill family, off and on, for over 500 years.

A Necessary Re-orientation.

            At this  point, we conveniently  pause again to take stock and  re-orient ourselves  in order to  establish a new perspective on the subsequent Churchill family.   It seems we should  re-trace our steps from  remarks made  by the earlier Winston Churchill in his initial account of the family -  in two respects.  Firstly, when he described the location of the earlier settlement of the family at Churchill  in  Somerset (where the main manor of the Churchills, so named,  appeared initially to be located  and, secondly, when he spoke of the assumed loss of  that manor (apparently) by an earlier Churchill – which was  then, at some point,  acquired by one  Nicholas Megges, when he married Jane Peverell (ca 1540-45, say) – implying that it had been previously acquired by the Peverells. [Winston appears not to have known about Bradford Peverel, Dorset therefore.]   This Nicholas  was geberally believed to have subsequently died  before   Jane  – who, as  generally reported,  only then married, secondly,  as a widow, our Roger Churchill (Wiliam’s eldest son)  - in about 1555-60, apparently -  from whom the  Churchill line of our prime interest was  understood to then descend.

             By this unlikely means, Roger  allegedly re-gained  possession of that  original Churchill  manor (in Somerset) - as described above – when a possible brother, John Churchill, would become the ancestor of the other branch of the family  -  apparently to soon reside initially at somewhere understood  to  be  ‘Munston’  (noted Winston) – seemingly in mid-north Dorset - not too  far from and contemporary with where his own father, also John, (and Winston himself)  would themselves reside  (ie at Wooton Glanville)  – as somehow descended from  Roger Churchill – being that John’s elder brother.    There had, in addition,  been suspicions that  Roger  had  lost the earlier estate  (as held by the Megges)   but when the latter man died, Roger  then  married Megges’ widow Jane  and thereby  re-gained that estate.  Quite inconsistent with all this however  was  the  idea that  Roger’s  and Jane’s grandson Jasper Churchill   was  subsequently  employed by the Megges – as a Blacksmith.

            But,  these events, and the Megges connection, turn out not to have occurred with respect to that seeming earlier Churchill manor – in t north Somerset   -  at all,   nor to  one wrongly assumed later to be in north Dorset either – at ‘Munston’,   nor  even to  another and actual Churchill manor, established l in south Devon (at Broadclyst or Rockbeare)  !   Moreover, it also appeared, importantly,  to necessitate a reversal of the order in which Jane Peverell  married her two respective husbands – and to have done so in fact,  in a quite different locale –  namely, more to the south east - in south Dorset – near, but not in,  Dorchester;   that is, in neither north Somerset,  nor in north  or  south Devon – both further  to  the east- and in Dorset! 

             Moreover, any confusion, ‘shadiness’ or disquiet arising during this ambiguous period (as implied by Winston) is only compounded  when we find in the genealogical literature differences of view regarding who was the eldest son of William and Mary (nee Creuse) – once the family concerned had left Devon, and later Catherston  in west Dorset,  -   apparently settle  eventually  at what turned out to be one or other of the  small manors of  Muston or Pulston, both nearer  Dorchester in Dorset  - where some Churchill  may have settled (and thus not at any more north-westerly location  – called,  if similarly  (in the former case), Munston  - as Winston had wrongly understood and assumed.   He seems in fact to have had no inkling of  from where  the brothers Roger and John Churchill  may have actually derived  - if not  north-west Dorset  nor, before that,  from an earlier  Churchill manor in  north Somerset.  Nor did he have any idea who their father may have been  - as William Churchill - of Roakbeare (next to Broadclyst), in mid-south Devon;   ie  - not in Somerset or Dorset, at all).

             The foregoing  is rather a lot to take in  and re-orient on’s self about.  Winston had seemingly confused various disparate elements (people, places and dates) of the events described  -  with  all elements wrongly approximated as well.  And while Muston manor would, much later, become a  property sold to the later Dorchester Churchills, it is possible that it too became confused with that  similar manor nearby - called Pulston - in a neighbouring valley (of the Cerne) at the time of the Dissolution (and sale) of the Monasteries ca 1535-45 - with their many associated and more distant manors.  [Note: we have more recently seen reference to a Dorset Mnaor called Pauston which, phonetically, is of course very similar to that of  ‘Pulston’.  But its location today seems  unknown.]

              Thus, neither the Somerset nor the Devon  manors  called ‘Churchill’ were the site where the alleged events involving Roger, Jane,  Mathew , or Nicholas Megges, unfolded.  They had, rather, all occurred only further east - in mid-south Dorset – after the younger Rockbeare son William Churchill  (ca 1496 - ?1573   or, less likely, 1583)  seems to have  migrated  to there (with his young family) –  via  Colyton, Catherstone  and possibly Bradford Peverell (near Dorchester) -   ultimately  by the 1530s-40s, it seems.