Indian Rocks

Introduction – a new book to read

Recently a friend of mine, Dixie Brown, sent me a copy of a book, “Manitou: The Sacred Landscape of New England’s Native Civilization” by James W. Mavor, Jr. and Byron E. Dix. She knew the Mavor family growing up and thought that I might like it, especially as it made many references to Ezra Stiles. I had read a book written by Ezra Stiles in the course of my research about the Friends of the Regicides which I blogged about last month (see here).

The prologue to this book begins with the following:

“The early seventeenth-century English settlers of America called the land New England because, among other reasons, it reminded them of home; they saw stone walls, standing stones and stone heaps like those of the English countryside. This remarkable collection of man-made works, now largely hidden and ignored in the modern forests, is awesome in quantity, size, and complexity, but its origins and functions have remained unknown.”

I’m still working slowly through this book, being deliberate in my reading as there is much detail to absorb and I want to appreciate all the nuances of the authors. It gets confusing at times because the two authors use third person to refer to themselves individually – for example the opening phrase of chapter reads, “In the summer of 1974 Byron Dix discovered …” and a few pages later when Mavor is introduced it reads, “Although Mavor had been only casually interested …”. But from then on it continues using the names “Mavor” and either “Byron” or “Dix” to refer to one of them (or “he/his” as appropriate pronouns). But when the two authors are working together it switches from third person to first person and uses “we/us/our” rather than the more consistent “they/them/their”.

While for the most part I am avoiding reading ahead so that I can let the investigation unfold, I did scan the index before I began – initially just seeing how many times Ezra Stiles was mentioned and in what context. But then I noticed that the city of Waterbury, CT was mentioned on page 133 and thought I’d see where in that city the authors had found something of interest. This blog is about my further exploration into that single reference on page 133.

 

Page 133 – a first sign of problems

There is a single paragraph on page 133 that led me to do some focused research. This paragraph reads:

“The Algonquian dialects contain numerous words meaning cedar swamp, with variants depending upon the environment. Similarly, there are many words for the confluence of streams and for stone mounds, implying cultural importance.²² Curious boulders located at the edge of swamps are part of Indian legend. In the region about Bristol, Connecticut, there was a white cedar swamp which was flooded in the 1870s to make present Fall Mountain Lake, a reservoir for the factories of Waterbury, Connecticut. Norton observed that a large boulder, perched on three smaller boulders was located at the edge of the swamp and known locally as Indian Rock. Also on the edge of that same swamp there is a large rock known as Witch Rock and near it another, balanced precariously on a small area of support, that figures in Indian legends.^26"

Having already noted the issues with first/third person case inconsistency, even before getting into the content of this paragraph, I find two other examples of lack of care in the production of this book. First, the superscript 22 in the third line above is a typo. The prior paragraph has a superscript of 24 and the superscript of 26 is at the end of the above paragraph. This “22” is a misprint of “25” as a quick check of the endnotes of the book confirms. The second issue is that the authors have chosen to put Waterbury into the index of the book and have omitted putting a reference to Bristol into the index. But the rocks mentioned are in Bristol and the fact that the water in the swamp eventually flows into Waterbury is clearly not important to the story.

These evidences of lack of care in the production of the book are only the first signs of problems of actual content. But before getting into the research, let me reproduce the endnote 26 as that is also important.

26. M. L. Norton, “The Story of Fall Mountain” and “Indians of Bristol and Vicinity,” in Bristol, Connecticut, no author, (Hartford: 1907), 15, 125.

M. L. Norton is Milo Leon Norton (1849-1932) who was a long-time resident of Bristol. He was also a distant cousin of mine, as were many of the other individuals he mentions, as the people who lived in the higher elevations in that part of Bristol, like the residents of my hometown of Wolcott to the immediate south, moved to that area in the mid-1700s from other earlier settled town like Farmington, Wallingford, and New Haven (see here).

 

Looking at other sources – and finding errors of fact

I grew up in the north end of Wolcott, CT, and my parents lived in the same house for 60 years. So I am very familiar with all the geography and history of that area. There are a couple of statements in the above paragraph on page 133 that are misleading or just plain untrue.

Name of Lake – The author gives a name to this former cedar swamp of Fall Mountain Lake. While there is a lake of that name just over the border from Bristol in Plymouth, CT, that is not the body of water that Norton references in his writings. Rather, the lake referred to was originally called Cedar Swamp Pond, and is now called just Cedar Lake. Norton never gives the name of the lake, although he does use the term “Fall Mountain” which is the name of that entire area of Bristol. In the below map you can see the “Fall Mountain School” – so named because it served the students of the Fall Mountain school district which occupied the SW corner of Bristol. But giving the lake an incorrect name in the Manitou book is clearly a mistake by those authors, not of Norton. (In this map the Russell family property is at the bottom right corner. The stream entering Cedar Swamp Pond originates in Russell’s Pond, now part of the Russell Preserve of the local land conservation organization. It’s only a mile from our house to the NE corner of the lake where Indian Rock is located.)

[map of Fall Mountain portion of Bristol]

 

Timing of Lake Construction – While it may be correct that the 1870s were significant in the flooding of the cedar swamp, the timing is quite a bit more nuanced than that single date implies. The Wolcott Historical Society maintains a website that include a series of maps of the town. In the 1868 map you can see that an initial dam already exists. In writing about the various bodies of water in the town (see here) , they note that the Mad River Water Company began purchasing water rights in the early 1860s and completed construction of the reservoirs, including Cedar Swamp Pond by 1874. Finally, the Cedar Lake Owners Association, which purchased the water rights from the Mad River Water Company, records on their website that the dam was raised around 1907 that extended the lake to its present size. You can see the changes in size of the Pond/Reservoir/Lake over the years on the above maps. It’s confusing to me that since Norton was writing his article about the area in 1907, the same time as the raising of the dam was occurring, that he does not mention it.

The names of the various rocks referred to are preserved in the Indian Rock Nature Preserve at the NE corner of the lake, and in Witches Rock Rd which runs along the west side of the lake (the name changes to Spindle Hill Rd when the road crosses over into Wolcott).

 

Errors of intent – making the facts match the narrative

The errors that bother me the most are those where it appears that the book authors have a predetermined narrative and have used words or nuance to make the facts support that narrative.

Origin of Rocks – In the second sentence of the prologue (quoted above), the authors call these stones a “remarkable collection of man-made works”. The authors’ intent is clearly to pull together examples that support their narrative about rocks which demonstrate human activity.

Thus, in the paragraph on page 133 (quoted above), they describe these rocks in Bristol using the phrases “a large boulder, perched on three smaller boulders” and “balanced precariously on a small area of support” with the verbs “perched” and “balanced” chosen to represent human activity. Note that they use these verbs only for the two rocks with which they attribute Indian activity. The third rock in the paragraph, Witch Rock, is simply referred to as “there is a large rock”. Because it does not add anything to their narrative, there is no information given about the third rock, Witch Rock, but there are a number of interesting stories about that one (see here).

But these particular rocks were not “perched” or “balanced” with human activity. They are HUGE boulders. The below pictures give some idea of scale. There are two of Indian Rock – one is taken from Norton’s writing, the other is contemporary picture courtesy of Google maps street-view. The other is of the “balanced” rock and is from Norton’s writing but no scale is apparent and I have not been able to locate a contemporary picture.

[Indian Rock]

 

[Balanced Boulder]

 

Rocks of this type are not unusual in southern Connecticut. They were brought to the area in the last ice age. The ice sheet entered Connecticut about 26,000 years ago, reached its maximum about 21,000 years ago, and was melted out of the state by 15,500 years ago. In fact, in Norton’s writing he describes finding a “peculiar” boulder in this same area that he tried to find the source of in New Hampshire and Vermont and then had a friend who discovered similar rock near the St. Lawrence River in Canada. But the authors seem blinded by their narrative of human activity.

Indian Rock – It is true that there is a large rock of this name. But is it named that because of Indian legend? Let’s look closer at Norton’s writing.

On page 11, he recounts an incident where two men, Gideon Ives and Jesse Gaylord (1735-1782), were hunting in the area near the cedar swamp. Gaylord saw an Indian taking aim at Ives and shot the Indian first. Norton notes that “the attempt upon the white man’s life was supposed to be because he was trespassing upon the private hunting-ground of the red man.” He also notes that “the Indian was known to the Whites as Morgan.” He then states that this determined the choice of location for Gaylord’s residence when he later moved to Bristol as “his first house being a few rods south of the big bowlder [sic], known as Indian Rock, or Rock House, from the fact that it was the temporary home of Morgan, who occupied the grotto underneath it when hunting in the vicinity."

Thus, the name of “Indian Rock” is not at all from some long-ago Indian legend, but from a historical incident involving a single individual.

Balanced Boulder – the “Indian legend” associated with this boulder is also fabricated. The picture of the balanced boulder above appears at the top of page 14. As captioned, this boulder is located near Witch Rock. Also on this same page appears a story about an Indian named Zach. A teen by the name of Newton Manruss was fishing in the brook that flows into the mine pond west of Zach’s Mountain when he took refuge under a shelving rock (obviously not the balanced boulder as that boulder is neither a shelving rock nor is it located near the area of the story). Newton found the skeleton of an Indian – it was not known whether he had been murdered or died a natural death and was buried by his friends. Norton then concludes by writing, “How many tragedies, unwritten and unknown, may have taken place on these hills in the far-off centuries, when the red men hunted each other with the ferocity of panthers, and the cunning of foxes!”

Thus, simply because of juxtaposition on a page, the authors have taken the musing of Norton and associated it with a “balanced rock” then stating that it “figures in Indian legends”.

 

Conclusions

I am enjoying reading the various articles in the book about Bristol, Connecticut, and increasing my knowledge of the area. I am also slowly working through the Manitou book. But of the latter I am now doing so with a skeptical eye and a recognition that the authors, in addition to being sloppy with their facts and writing, seem to have been clouded by the narrative that underlies their research and seem to be fitting their findings to the narrative rather than the other way around.

 

MSU Marching Band

I’ve written about some aspects of my musical life in my autobiography. I also wrote fairly extensively about it in a blog two years ago (see here). But there are a few things that I had left out that I’d like to add to that story.

I only briefly mentioned my membership in the MSU Marching Band in my prior blog since I did not play the flute there. The band in those days was 160 strong and consisted of ONLY male members (now it has over 300 members and is not sex-limited). Because of the need to have louder instruments when performing in the football stadium, they had a few years earlier eliminated all woodwinds except alto and tenor saxophones and had added E-flat cornets for the higher range parts that are normally played by flutes or clarinets. But as someone who played in the activity band and who understood music, I was eligible take other parts in the marching band.

As noted in Wikipedia, the MSU Spartan Marching Band (SMB) has a long and storied tradition. When I joined in the fall of 1967, Leonard Falcone had just retired after 40 years as the band director and Harry Begian had taken over. But Bill Moffit was continuing on and it was he who had invented the “Patterns of Motion” that the SMB was known for. The members of the SMB work long and hard each week, practicing first with their group of four in memorizing the steps that they will be taking as they march together on the field, then with their instrument section memorizing the music, then all together on the practice field. On Saturday, they begin their practice 4-5 hours in advance of the game.

The flag corps was new for the fall of 1967, and I was one of the first ten new SMB members in that unit. We chose flags by lot, and I then carried the flag for the University of Iowa for that season. We practiced just as much as the instrumentalists, except that we did not have to learn the music – instead we had to work on the routines of when to hold the flags upright, when to dip them, etc. It was a fair amount of work!

As the above Wikipedia article notes,

“The Big Ten Flag Corps is a pre-game and parade tradition in the Spartan Marching Band that was added in 1967. Members carry large banner type flags on lance poles, which salute the fourteen universities in the Big Ten Conference. This Corps is made up of individuals who demonstrate the same levels of dedication, work ethic, and athletic ability shown by other members of the SMB. They carry out unique traditions that exhibit the style and form of the Spartan Marching Band.”

The flag unit (now called the Big Ten Flag Corps) is also mentioned prominently on the SMB website, where it notes:

“Perhaps one of Begian and Moffit’s most innovative additions to the band in 1967 was the Big Ten Flag Corps. The Spartan Marching Band debuted ten new flags in its 1967 Homecoming performance. Each of the ten flags represented one of the Big Ten universities, emblazoned with the name of the school and its colors. Flags have been added over time to reflect the additions of Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers to the conference. The fourteen Big Ten flags lead the SMB in all parades, including the gameday march to Spartan Stadium. The Flag Corps also leads the band on to the field of Spartan Stadium during the famous kick step field entrance.”

Because the Flag Corps was new in 1967, we did not participate in the away game the first week. That way we could have the extra time of practice until our debut at the homecoming game the following week. But since our routines were slightly different than the rest of the band (see below), that extra practice was useful.

The Flag Corps even has their own page on the SMB website (https://www.spartanmarchingband.com/bigtenflags). A few quotes from that page.

“[they] are a group of extremely hard-working and passionate individuals with an amazing bond. Not only do [they] get the first look at Sparty [the MSU Spartan statue] as they make the turn across the Beal Street Bridge [on the way from the practice field to the stadium], but they are also ‘first on, last off’ Spartan Stadium field every pregame.”

“One of the most exciting parts of being a Big Ten Flag is leading the band during Series [the name of the street marching cadence] to the stadium and kick stepping out onto the field in pregame.”

Kick stepping onto the field is challenging in many ways. First, since the flags lead the band, you cannot hesitate, or you will be run over – and with an entrance cadence of 220, you have to move pretty quickly. Second, doing the kick step while carrying a 6-foot-high flag on a sometimes windy day has its challenges.

During the pre-game and half-time show, there are additional challenges. While the band is broken up into 4-man teams that do everything together, the flags (at least back in 1967) were 5-man teams, so our patterns were slightly different. Also, sometimes we were at the front of the band for one portion, then needed to be at the ends or on the other side for another portion, so instead of mostly marching in an 8-to-5 pace (8 steps for 5 yards, using the football field markings every 5 yards), the flags had to prance at a 4-to-5 pace in order to get where we needed to be as quickly as possible. It’s these kinds of things that made for the “extremely hard-working and passionate individuals with an amazing bond” that is mentioned above. I was honored to be part of the SMB during that inaugural year of the flag corps.

By the next year, the flag corps had been fully established as part of the SMB. Because I lived in New England, I was not able to get to campus 10 days in advance of classes as is required (see requirements in Wikipedia article). So, I signed on as one of the band assistant managers instead. The job of the assistant managers included the following:

·         Distributing music to each of the band members (and tracking who had what)

·         Distributing uniforms, raincoats, hats, etc. (and taking in any dirty or damaged items, replacing it, and arranging for any cleaning or repairs as needed)

·         Ensuring that raincoats or overcoats are taken to the stadium as the weather dictates

·         Bringing boxes of apples to the stadium to keep band members supplied

·         Getting water pots filled (see note below) for use during the game

·         Running onto the field during/after pregame or half-time show to gather up any dropped hats, etc. (band members cannot stop if their hat falls off, they have to keep marching)

·         Anything else required by the band director

The water pots are filled after the band has completed their pregame routine on the field and are seated in the portion of the stadium reserved for them. The water source is in the football team locker room. That meant carrying these large pots into the locker room where all the players are getting ready for the game. Since these are fairly big guys to begin with and they have on their football pads (making them wider) and cleats (making them taller) they are even bigger than usual. I’m not a small person but making my way around them in the locker room I felt pretty small.

The assistant managers also dress in the same uniforms as they need to blend in seamlessly during the march to the stadium, during the kick step entrance, and as they sweep the field following right behind the other SMB members gathering up any dropped items. These types of positions, while not musical in nature, are just as necessary for the effective functioning of the SMB.

[MSU Band]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E1neD_otNs

Pierrepont Family Crest

Recently I acquired a copy of the Pierrepont crest and genealogy that had been published in 1764 (over 250 years ago)! There were three pages – a hand-colored crest with text below and two pages containing 24 generations of the Pierrepont family, beginning with Robert who came to England in 1066 with William the Conqueror and ending with Evelyn Pierrepont who was a Duke.

The text on the page reads as follows:

Family Crest of the Most High, Puissant, and Noble Prince, Evelyn Pierrepoint, Duke of Kingston-Upon-Hull, Marquis of Dorchester, Earl of Kingston, Viscount Newark, Baron Pierrepoint of Holme-Pierrepoint

There are actually a few errors in this text. First, the family name is spelled “Pierrepoint” (3 times) which is at odds with the more accurate spelling of “Pierrepont” contained in the accompanying genealogy charts. Second, Evelyn never held the title of Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, this title being “reverted” when the title of Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull was granted to his grandfather (and the full title for his Earlship should have included the “-upon-Hull” portion.

These pages were from a 5-volume collection that was written by Joseph Edmondson (-1786) He was originally a carriage painter, but this led to a study of heraldry and genealogy. The full work he produced was titled “Baronagium Genealogicum, or the Pedigrees of the English Peers, Deduced from the Earliest Times”, and it was 1054 pages when published in 1764. Edmondson also produced a supplement of 260 pages in 1784 shortly before his death. Very few copies of the full set still exist as most have been dismantled and sold as individual pages (or sets of pages). Such auction houses as Christies have sold plates including a set of 8 plates sold for $1315 in 2003 and a set of 12 plates sold for $4541 in 2004. Single plates often sell for $325-$425.

 

Family Coat of Arms

The family crest is actually just a shield-shaped figure (called an Escutcheon). It contains a field of “cinquefoils”, i.e. five-sided “flowers”. In the center is a standing (rampant) lion. The flowers are red and the lion is sable, i.e. black. Here is a simple form of the coat of arms.

[Pierpont coat of arms]

 

For family members who hold titles – Baron, Duke, etc. – the crest is usually topped with a “crown” (called a coronet) whose shape and elaborateness vary based on the title. Here is an example:

[Pierpont coat of arms with crown]

 

In the example here, the coat of arms is very elaborate with not only the coronet of a Duke, but with a crest consisting of a “lion rampant sable” between two wings, supporters on each side also consisting of sable lions, and the family motto below. It is quite elaborate and was hand-colored after being printed back in 1764.

 

In the genealogy charts that accompanied this crest and in the upper left of the first page is another crest labeled “The Original Crest”. Instead of the rampant sable lion, it has a picture of a fox with one paw extended forward. In Latin this is called “a fox passant gu.” But where was this alternate crest used?

Referring to Fairbairn's book of crests of the families of Great Britain and Ireland, all references to the Pierpont/Pierrepont/Pierrepoint and Manvers families refer to the “lion rampant sa.” With the exception of three: (1) “Pierpont, Hants” which has a crest of “a fox gu.”, i.e. one without the extended paw; (2) “Pierpont, Shropsh.” which gives “fox passant gu.” as an alternate; and (2) “Pierrepont” (non-specified, i.e. not the ones from Holme Pierrepont) as “fox passant gu.”

The first two references are to William (1607/8-1678). As the second son, William did not inherit any land/titles from his father, Robert. But he did purchase Thoresby (see below) and it is believed that he used a dower of his mother to do so. Also, he married Elizabeth Harris who was the daughter and heir of Sir Thomas Harris whose property included Tong Castle in Shropshire (see below). William did not have any titles, so he would not have had a family crest, but it would have been used by Gervase when he became a baron. When the property passed on from Gervase, it was merging with the main peerage line of the Pierrepont family and the fox crest would have been discontinued.

Some of the other genealogies of the Pierpont family, such as the one by Moffat in 1913, used the fox crest on the cover, but I have found any verification of the fox crest other than the one detailed above. Since the “Pierrepont” reference in Fairbairn’s book is so ambiguous, it is difficult to know when else it might have applied.

Family Motto

On the bottom of the family crest is a ribbon which contains the family motto. It reads “Pie Repone Te” (some variations have a “.” after the “Pie”) in three, sometimes four, pieces across the ribbon. At first glance, one might think that it’s a rendition of “Pierrepont” that is in some sort of misspelling or variation on the family name. But it’s actually a visual pun on the family name and it’s in Latin.

“Piens” (which is abbreviated by the “Pie” or “Pie.”) is the Latin adjective for pious/holy/godly. “Repone” is a verb which means replace/restore/lay/repay/lay aside/store and is in the imperative form. “Te” is the Latin word for “you”.

I’ve seen a number of versions of this translated into English, including “Trust in Providence”, “Place yourself piously”, “Relax in piety”, or “Dutifully restore you”.

 

Background of the Pierrepont Family

I’ve written a separate post about the members of the Pierrepont family who were part of the “peerage” of England (see here). But as some background to that, I’d like to comment on some of the places in England inhabited by the family.

Places where the Pierrepont family lived or where their titles refer

·         Holme-Pierrepont – the family home of the Pierrepont family, just outside of Nottingham

·         Nottinghamshire – the shire (county) of about 800K people with the county seat of Nottingham – population 330K

·         Derbyshire – shire just to the west of Nottinghamshire

·         Kingston-upon-Hull – a port city (population of 250K) where the Hull River empties into the Humber Estuary about 25 miles inland from the North Sea, about 90 miles NE of Nottingham

·         Dorchester – a town of about 20K people in the south of England, about 220 miles from Nottingham

·         Newark – also called Newark-on-Trent – a market town of 27K people in Nottinghamshire, on the edge of Sherwood Forest, about 20 miles from Nottingham. Best known as the place where King Charles I surrendered during the English Civil Wars.

·         Shropshire – the location of Tong Castle, a shire of about 500K people located 90 miles west of Nottingham against Wales

Sheriff of Nottingham

Having mentioned Nottingham and Sherwood Forest, you may be reminded of the tale of Robin Hood who “stole from the rich and gave to the poor.” In this tale, Robin lived in Sherwood Forest and his adversary was the Sheriff of Nottingham. While the tale is fictional, not only does Sherwood Forest exist, but the Sheriff of Nottingham was a real position. From 1068 until 1566, this position existed as the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests, but after 1566 the position was split and there were separate appointments made for the Sheriff of Derbyshire and the High Sheriff of Nottingham. This was an annual appointment. The following members of the Pierrepont family served in this position:

·         1469 – Sir Henry Pierrepont

·         1471 – Sir Henry Pierrepont

·         1503 – William Pierrepont

·         1522 – Sir William Pierrepoint

·         1558 – George Pierrepont

·         1575 – Henry Pierrepont

·         1601 – Henry Pierrepont

·         1615 – Robert Pierrepont, 1^st Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull

·         1795 – Jonas Bettison of Holme Pierrepont

·         1798 – Nathaniel Stubbins of Holme Pierrepont

·         1982 – Robin Brackenbury of Holme Pierrepont

Homes of the Pierrepont Family

Finally, a brief mention of the actual homes where the Pierrepont family lived is in order. After Robert de Pierrepont accompanied William the Conqueror to England in 1066 the family originally lived in the south of England. After Henry de Pierrepont married Annora de Manvers around 1280 the family acquired property in Nottinghamshire. The area was then known as just Holme, but the family surname was added as a suffix, making it Holme Pierrepont. The current home on that property, known as Holme Pierrepont Hall, was built by Sir William Pierrepont around 1500. This home became a secondary home of the family when Thoresby Hall (see below) was built and remained occupied by members of the family until WWI when it was requisitioned for military purposes. After WWII, it was occupied by a sister of the 5^th Earl Manvers, then sold to her cousin, Mrs. Brackenbury, in 1968. It is now used as a luxury function venue for weddings, etc. as the family lives elsewhere on the property.

In 1633, Robert Pierrepont, the 1^st Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull, acquired land farther north in Nottinghamshire known as Thoresby. His son, Henry Pierrepont, the 2^nd Earl, built the first house on that land. In 1746, during ownership by Evelyn Pierrepont, 2^nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, the house was destroyed by a fire. He built a new house on that same site twenty years later. In 1868, Sydney Pierrepont, the 3^rd Earl Manvers had that house demolished and erected the current house, known as Thoresby Hall. When the last Earl Manvers, Gervas Pierrepont, died without a male heir in 1955 and all the Pierrepont titles became extinct, the house remained with his wife and daughter for a while, then was sold in 1979. The house is currently owned by Warner Leisure Hotels who operates it as a 200-room country house hotel.

William Pierrepont (1607-1678), despite not having any titles, became the owner of Tong Castle which his wife, Elizabeth Harris, inherited through her father, Sir Thomas Harris. When Elizabeth died in 1656, it became the property of her husband. Because their son, Robert, predeceased him in 1666, the castle passed to their second son, Gervase (1649-1715). He died without children so it then passed to the third grandson of William, Evelyn (1665-1726), the older sons of Robert (1637) having died in 1682 and 1690. Evelyn passed it on to his grandson, Evelyn (1711-1773) who, then owning three castles, sold Tong Castle in 1764.

 

Peerage in the Pierrepont Family

Peerage rules are pretty complicated. Here is a detailed explanation before showing how they are applied to the Pierpont Family. Hang on to your seats – there are a lot of pieces to this…

There are five “levels” of Peers. From lowest to highest these are Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, and Duke. Those at the higher levels are rarer and have a higher status. They are also often associated with specific properties (cities/towns) and may have income associated with those properties. I’m not going to get into those details here. One can simultaneously hold titles at multiple levels.

There are also inheritance rules that are given out with these titles. The most common (at least with the Pierrepont family) is “heirs male of the body lawfully begotten”. (You can see this on the right side of the discussion about one of these titles here.) This means that the title can only be passed on to male descendants. It cannot be given to adopted children (i.e. “of the body”), nor to illegitimate children (i.e. “lawfully begotten”). Another one that shows up in the Pierrepont family is “heirs general…” where it is possible for females to inherit the title (however, because of primogeniture, they are only eligible after all the males have been exhausted).

A final complication is that there are multiple “peerage” records – England, Ireland, and Great Britain. The significance is that those who hold titles in the Peerage of Ireland are not eligible to be members of the House of Lords.

Now, let’s look at the Pierrepont family. There were various titles held over the course of eleven generations – beginning in 1627 and not ending until 1955. In the below I will not list all the individuals involved in each generation, but will leave out younger children and females who did not inherit. All the individuals had the surname Pierrepont except where noted, so I will leave that out to avoid unnecessary repetition. (Note that the dates given here may vary by 1 from other sources.)

In the below, the first six generations match with the genealogical charts that I recently acquired that had been written in 1764. In those charts there are different types of crowns for Baron/Viscount/Earl/Marquis/Duke.

Generation 1

·         Robert (1584-1643) – Created Baron Pierrepont in 1627 and simultaneously created Viscount Newark in the peerage of England. Also created Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1628. The Earl title was “heirs general…”

Generation 2

·         Henry (1606-1680) – inherited all the titles from his father Robert. Also created Marquess of Dorchester in 1645. Survived both his sons, so with no male heirs “of the body” his Marquessate title became extinct with his passing. However, the titles that he had inherited from his father could be passed on to other heirs of his father.

·         William (1607-1678) – as the younger son of Robert, did not inherit any titles and, as he predeceased his older brother, he never got to inherit from him either. However, he did have male children in the next generation.

Generation 3

·         Robert (1637-1666) – predeceased his father, William, so never inherited. However, he did have three sons in the next generation.

·         Gervase (1649-1715) – created Baron Pierrepont of Ardglass under the Peerage of Ireland in 1702. Since he was serving in the House of Commons at the time, he could continue to do so as his peerage was not eligible for the House of Lords.  Later also created as Baron Pierrepont of Hanslope under the Peerage of Great Britain in 1714 at which time he became a member of the House of Lords. Had no male heirs so both of these baronies became extinct when he passed away. 

     Generation 4

·         Robert (1660-1682) – oldest son of Robert, inherited all his great-uncle Henry’s titles, never married

·         William (1662-1690) – second son of Robert, inherited the titles of his older brother, died of apoplexy without children

·         Evelyn (1665-1726) – third and youngest son of Robert, inherited the titles of his older brother. In 1706, created Marquess of Dorchester, a title that had been extinct since the passing of his grandfather 26 years earlier. In 1715 created Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull at which time the title of Earl of that same city was reverted, i.e. given up in exchange for the higher title.

Generation 5

·         William (1692-1713) – at age 20 predeceased his father, but not before having two children

Generation 6

·         Evelyn (1711-1773) – succeeded his grandfather in 1726 at the age of 15, but spent the next 10 years on a “grand tour” of Europe where he was known for gambling and loose living. Died without issue at which time all his titles became extinct. He had married, but the marriage was later found to be bigamous. His nephews challenged his will, but the bigamy was found not to affect his wife’s inheritance of the property.

·         Frances (1712-1795) – younger sister of Evelyn. As a female, the only title which she would have been eligible for was the Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull as that had been created as “heir general”. But since that title had been reverted nearly 60 years prior when her grandfather became a duke, she did not inherit any titles. However, her son Charles was able to be titled in the next generation.

Generation 7

·         Charles (1737-1816) – born Charles Medows to Frances. When his aunt died in 1788 and he inherited the Pierrepont property, he adopted the surname of Pierrepont by Royal License. In 1796 he was created Baron Pierrepont of Holme Pierrepont as well as the “courtesy title” of Viscount Newark of Newark-on-Trent. In 1806 he was also elevated to Earl Manvers at which time his Viscount title passed to his second son, Charles, as his first son, Evelyn, had predeceased him in 1801.

Generation 8

·         Charles (1778-1860) – received the Viscount Newark title from his father in 1806, later succeeded his father as Earl Manvers in 1816 at which time he passed the Viscount title to his son Charles.

Generation 9

·         Charles (1805-1850) – received the Viscount Newark title from his father in 1816, but later predeceased his father and the Viscount title passed to his younger brother.

·         Sydney (1826-1900) – received the Viscount Newark title from his older brother in 1850, then the Earl Manvers title when his father passed away in 1860 at which time the Viscount title passed to his son Charles.

Generation 10

·         Charles (1854-1926) – received the title of Viscount from his father in 1860, then the Earl Manvers title when his father passed away in 1900 at which time the Viscount title passed to his son Evelyn.

·         Evelyn (1856-1926) – as the younger son of Sydney, did not receive any titles, however he had a son Gervas, who would later receive them from Evelyn’s nephew.

Generation 11

·         Evelyn (1888-1940) – received the title of Viscount from his father in 1900, then the Earl Manvers title when his father passed away in 1926 at which time the Viscount title passed to his cousin, Gervas. He had suffered a mental breakdown at the age of 17 and was incapacitated the remainder of his life and his estates were administered by a trust.

·         Gervas (1881-1955) – received the Viscount Newark title from his cousin in 1926. When his cousin died in 1940 he received the Earl Manvers title at which time the Viscount Newark title would have reverted. As his only son, Evelyn, had died at the age of only 4 in 1928, he had no male heirs, so all the Pierrepont titles became extinct upon his death. His daughter, Lady Frederica Rozelle Ridgway Pierrepont, inherited the Pierrepont estates on the death of her father in 1955 – she lived until 2015.

 

Impact on the New England Pierpont Family

I had published an article a few years ago about the efforts of the New England Pierponts to see if they could move back to England and claim any of the English Pierrepont titles. Their initial contacts were with Evelyn (1665) but he had no knowledge of his ancestors from before the time of Charles I (1625-1649).

Later, in 1878, a descendant from New England made contact with Sydney (1826) and they viewed records from the ancestral home, Holme Pierrepont, in Nottingham – that being a secondary home at the time as the family was by then living in Thoresby Hall. While those documents were able to verify the ancestral connection to the New England Pierponts, that connection was through Sir George Pierrepont (1510-1564) who had been the grandfather of both the first titled Pierrepont, Robert (1584-1643) and James Pierpont (1580-1664) – James being the grandfather of the Rev. James who had initiated the looking for a connection to those titles.

However, according to the rules of inheritance of peerage, all the English titles had been created with the remainder clause of either “heir male of the body…” or “heir general of the body…”, so with the “of the body” clause the titles could only pass to descendants of the original holder of that title. While titles can be passed to cousins such as in the case of Evelyn (1888-1940) passing the Earl Manvers title to Gervas (1884-1955), that was only because both of them were descendants of the original Earl Manvers, Charles (1737-1816). None of these titles could have been passed “up” the tree to an ancestor of the one originally given the title, then back down another branch (to someone on the New England side – even if they moved back to England). Thus, the efforts of the Rev. James Pierpont or any of his New England relatives would not have been able to amount to anything, even if they had been able to prove their genealogical connection while any of their titled relatives still held those titles.

[Pierrepont Genealogy – two pages]