• Welcome to Family History Forum 🔎

    Dive into a community where unraveling family history is a shared passion. Here, real people collaborate, offering advice, insights, and support in navigating the rich tapestry of genealogy. Engage in vibrant discussions, pose questions, or celebrate your latest findings on our active message boards.

    Whether you're piecing together ancestry or breaking through brick walls in your research, our forum is your essential resource 📚

    Join fellow family historians in this journey, where every story uncovered strengthens the bonds that connect us all 🔗

    Family History UK
  • Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Blythes Think I've been led up wrong alley


Loyal Member
I have been trying to find whose parents John Blythe born about 1520 and have been looking at various strands thinking of Bishops House as the property of a minor branch of the family because thats whats other researchers have said and after all there aren't so many obvious high born marriages. Started thinking about it and realise I've been led astray.

The family property starts in Bakewell and Chesterfield in the time of Edward 1. In 1377 the family branches out and buys land at Norton Lees. Various members marry well and move to other estates, but the family land is Chesterfield and Norton Lees and when the head of the family dies is therefore transferred to the eldest son, so logically John must be descended from the main branch of the family. This means either from Thomas who had moved to run estates in Doncaster or Richard who was running estates in Birchett and Greenhill.

I suppose that John could be Thomas's grandson. I note in a legal argument there was something about a John of Norton Lees quitting claim to Thomas's estate. There was 2 instances of Blythes from Norton crossing over to inherit the Doncaster estate when there was no living heir. I think I am going to have to delve deeper into the Doncaster Blythes, especially any legal documents.

I should have realised that there are always family historians that will muck trees up in a desperate attempt to prove they are linked to royalty and who discard any fact that gets in their way. In the Blythe tree they even resurrected a dead child to prove they were related and that the branch hadn't ended there and a cousin inherited. The cousin couldn't be linked to the royal family so they just ignored all the legal papers and the heralds records that proved them wrong.

Similar threads