Whatmore Family History

In 1619, during the Heralds’ Visitation of Kent, William Watmer of Canterbury gave the Heralds details of his family back to his ancestors at Prescot in Lancashire. These details were recorded and the document was deposited at the College of Arms in London (Ms: C16/214). Over the years it is most unlikely that anyone asked to see the pedigree of William Watmer.  By the nineteenth century, however, there was a growing interest in genealogy and many family trees were being drawn up. With no doubt an eye to a lucrative market, in 1830 William Berry published the first of his volumes of County Genealogies at 5 or 6 guineas per volume. The first volume he published covered Kent and included the pedigree chart of William Watmer  from the 1619 Visitation - in print for the first time.

The printed tree showed at its head: John Watmoughe of Ecclestone, son and heir.

Part of the pedigree chart of William Watmer, from ‘County Genealogies etc: Kent’  by William Berry, published by Joseph Foster 1830

In 1898 the Harleian Society published the whole of the 1619 Visitation of Kent.  Its version of the  treeof William Watmer showed at its head: Johannes Watmoughe de Ecclestone fil. et hae.

John Watmough was thus regared as our earliest ancestor and he is described as such in ‘ Wat’s Brother-in-Law’ and ‘Whatmore Panorama’ - Geoffrey Whatmore’s publications on our family.

About eighteen months ago, with Geoffrey Whatmore’s permission I was rummaging through the family papers which he had deposited at Shropshire Archives when I came across a history of the Belbroughton branch of the family written by John Whitmore. This included a manuscript family tree and to my surprise it showed a Richard Watmoughe at its head - the father of John of Ecclestone. Where had John Whitmore got this from and was it correct?

Luckily John Whitmore’s family history gave his address and with the aid of Directory Enquiries I was able to telephone him the same day as my visit to Shropshire Archives. With great excitement, I asked about Richard Watmoughe. What John Whitmore told me was a fascinating story.

In 1981, John Whitmore had written to the College of Arms asking about his right to bear the Whatmore coat of Arms. (As explained in a previous post, John Whitmore’s family are actually Whatmores, with a clear descent from the early family at Stottesdon.) John had included with his letter a copy of the pedigree chart from the 1619 Visitation of Kent. He received a reply from Thomas Woodcock, Rouge Croix Pursivant which answered his query, and with the letter was enclosed the pedigree chart which Mr Woodcock had checked, annotated and verified. Under the name of John Watmoughe at the head of the tree he had added ’son and heir of Richard’.

 Pedigree chart of William Watmer as annotated by Mr Thomas Woodcock, Rouge Croix Pursuivant, College of Arms

Copyright: John Whitmore and reproduced here by his kind permission.

At this time, Geoffrey Whatmore had not published his research and the internet was not available, so John Whitmore naturally assumed that it was well known to Whatmore researchers that John of Ecclestone’s father was Richard, so he simply added Richard’s name to his own chart  and published his history for circulation within his own family.

With the publication of the first edition of ‘Whatmore ‘Panorama’ in 1996, John Whitmore sent a copy of his family history to Geoffrey Whatmore who was  no doubt at that time being deluged with responses to his book and as a result failed to notice the additional ancestor at the head of John Whitmore’s family tree.

It seemed fairly obviously that Mr Woodcock had obtained the name of Richard Watmoughe from the original manuscripts of the 1619 Visitation, but I had to be sure about this so I wrote to him. In a very courteous reply, Mr Woodcock who is now Norroy and Uster King of Arms, confirmed that the original manuscript shows the following: ‘Johannes Watmoughe de Ecclestone filius et haeres Ricardi.’

Why had the name of Richard been omitted from the pedigree published by William Berry?  Was it carelessness on his part? It appears that the Kent volume was severely reviewed by ‘The Gentleman’s Magazine ‘ in August 1829 and as a result, William Berry brought an action for libel against the publishers of the magazine, which he lost.

In the July 1851 issue of ‘The Gentleman’s Magazine’ the death of William Berry was reported in an article which reviewed his work.  Regarding the libel action, the following is stated in the article:

‘The chief offence alleged was that we had declared that Mr Berry had wrongly assumed in his title page the designation of ‘late and for fifteen years Registering Clerk in the College of Arms’ … The College had no such officer as a Registering Clerk, and Mr Berry had been merely a writing clerk in the private employ of two of its members.’

The article goes on to state:

‘As compilations principally from the Heralds’ Visitations, which had not previously been printed, Berry’s County Genealogies are useful books for reference, though not to be depended upon for perfect accuracy either in the statement of facts, or even in transcription’.

It looks then, as if William Berry was responsible for the omission of the name of our ancestor, but was he? If we examine the pedigree chart published by the Harleian Society in 1898 there is the same omission. Reading the introduction to the Harleian Society’s volume on the Visitation of Kent, it becomes clear that there were several copies of the Visitation available in various libraries and that none of these copies  were exactly alike. It is also made clear that the Visitation published by the Society was based on a ‘copy’ not the original manuscripts. This copy obviously omitted our ancestor’s name, and as it seems likely  that William Berry had had no access to the original manuscripts and must have used copies of the Visitations, it appears that his copy for Kent also omitted the name of our ancestor.

 If there is a moral in this tale - it must be that one should never rely solely on printed sources but always try to  check the original records.