RETURN TO CONTENTS PAGE
RETURN TO MEDIAEVAL FAMILIES PAGE
The following pedigree was published in "The Visitations of Suffolk, 1561, 1577 & 1612" (Metcalfe, 1882). Inconsistencies in this pedigree cast doubt on its authenticity. It gives the appearance of having been edited several times.
BLOSSE of Ipswich and Belsted Hall.
THOMAS BLOSSE of Ipswich, co. Suff., ob. 1342, mar. and had issue.
THOMAS BLOSSE, of Ipswich, son and heir, who died 1390, mar, and had issue, -- THOMAS, son and heir, who died 1454, mar. and had issue THOMAS, son and heir; (Alice, second wife to Richard Frere of Occult.)
THOMAS BLOSSE of Ipswich, son and heir to Thomas, ob. where he was Baylye, 1522, mar. Joane, da. of Robert Canham of Swaffham in Norf., and by her had issue, -- THOMAS, son and heir ; TOBYE, second son ; [Margaret (?Martha) wife to John Knapp of Ipswich ; ... wife to (John) Bull of Bradshaw in Suff. ; Elizabeth, wife to Richard Reynolds of London, Merchant.]
THOMAS BLOSSE, Alderman of Norwich, son and heir to Thomas, mar. Mary, da. of ... Bowde and widow of ... Barker, and had no issue.
TOBYE BLOSSE of Ipswich, Portman, second son of Thomas of Ipswich, mar. Elizabeth, da. of Thomas Sicklemore of Ipswich, Portman, and hath issue, -- THOMAS, son and heir ; Tobyas, second son ; Alice, eldest da. mar. George Goodinge of Grundisburgh, co. Suff. ; Elizabeth, second da. mar. John Couchman of London, Gent. ; Joane, third da. mar. Stephen Noble of London, Gent. ; Mary, fourth da. mar. William Harrison of London, Gent. ; Susan fifth da. ; Abigail, sixth da. ; Dorcus, seventh da. ; Debora, eighth da.
THOMAS BLOSSE of Belsted Hall, co. Suff., Gent., son and heir-apparent, mar. Mary, da. of ... Cage of Ipswich, Portman, and as yet hath no issue, 1620.
Thomas of Belsted Hall, near Ipswich, still has no issue at 1620, which is 8 years after the Visitation, so this comment must have been added subsequent to the copy which Metcalfe was working from, which was presumably not the copy supplied to the herald. In fact the whole paragraph may have been added after 1612. Thomas is heir-apparent, therefore his father (Tobye) is still living. Thomas would probably have been born c.1590
Tobye of Ipswich was alive at the 1612 Visitation, and was probably born c. 1565. He probably provided the pedigree at the Visitation, as it is well-detailed for his generation.
Thomas, Alderman of Norwich, was presumably the elder brother of Tobye, so would have been born c.1563. He presumably died some time before 1610 as it says he "had no issue" rather than "hath no issue"
Thomas, of Ipswich, was presumably father of both Thomas and Tobye, so therefore was still alive at c.1565. The phrase "ob. where he was Baylye, 1522" is not understood. Was he Baylye at Ipswich in 1522, or did he die in 1522 at Ipswich? The pedigree probably only listed his male issue, Thomas and Tobye, and the daughters have been added later, as their details appear within square brackets. Presumably these have been guessed by someone comparing pedigrees of the inter-related families. Presumably whoever made these additions guessed a daughter named Margaret married John Knapp, and at a later date someone else (perhaps Metcalfe, 1882) has corrected this to show Martha, to agree with the Knapp pedigree (which also appears in the Metcalfe book). But Martha would have been born c.1540, so her father (Thomas Bloyse according to the Knapp pedigree), would have been born no later than say 1520, and would have been alive 1540.
His father Thomas died in 1454; his father Thomas died 1390; and his father Thomas died 1342. All of which is most improbable. Summed up, the pedigree is quite unreliable, and would probably have been rejected by the herald at the Visitation. Other sources suggest that Martha was born at Grundisburgh. All that can be deduced with limited certainty is as follows:
[BLOS581] Thomas, of Ipswich, possibly married Joane Canham (possibly of Grundisburgh).
[BLOS592] Martha (possibly born at Grundisburgh, c.1540) married (at Ipswich, 1563) [KNAP591] John Knapp (see KNAPP).