ALL IN THE WASHINGTON FAMILY

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in British Heritage magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

On behalf of the Washington family I want to thank you for printing the article on Washington Old Hall (December/ January 1998/1999, page 26). It was interesting to read, but I had to write to inform you that my ancestor, William de Hertburn, or Hartburn, was not of Norman lineage. When he changed his surname he added the Norman "de." He was the son of Sir Patrick and Cicely. His father was the Earl of Lothian, keeper and justicar of Lothian and Berwick.

His ancestry sprang from the ancient house of Dunbar, a great and illustrious family, from whose records the blood lines of descent from kings of Ireland, Scotland, England, and France have all been proven.

Sir William married twice. His first wife’s name is unknown to the family, but he had children by her. His second wife was a kinswoman. Her name was Margaret. She was the Countess of Richmond, a descendant of Malcolm III, and sister of William the Lion, King of Scotland.

After Sir William purchased the estates from the Bishop of Durham he changed his name again and was known as Sir William de Wessyngton. He owned vast lands. He inherited the border estate of Hirsel from his grandmother (today the seat of the Douglas-Home family) and the estate of Greenlaw.

The main line used the coat of arms seen today and still display it during family reunions held each year. The coat of arms was granted to Sir John de Wessyngton, third son of Sir Robert II and Agnes, by Edward II. Sir John chose the ancient colours that had been chosen by Malred, son of Crinen, red and silver (not white).

My ancester, Sir Robert Washington, was the first to use the surname as it is spelled today. He was the son of Sir John de Wessyngton. During colonial times those in the family that moved to Kentucky from Virginia changed their name for a time back to Wessyngton.

O. Hilda Washington Robinson
Suffolk, Virginia

CONFUSING PILGRIMS

In the February/March 1999 issue the article "The View from Camelot" (page 3) was very interesting, but on one point was misleading. You mention the Mayflower steps in Plymouth, "from which the Pilgrim Fathers set sail for America." I don’t care how many steps they have, the Mayflower set sail first of all from Southampton, then had to put into Plymouth for repairs. If they hadn’t needed repairs done, they wouldn’t have stopped at Plymouth at all.

I don’t know why their final stopping place was called Plymouth Rock; maybe they thought it sounded better than Southampton Rock. Incidentally, there is a memorial at the spot in Southampton where the Mayflower sailed from. The water has receded and it is now on dry land.

Also in the same issue Mary R. Miley writes that Henry VIII took Hampton Court Palace from Cardinal Wolsey when he failed to "obtain from the Pope what the King wanted most: a divorce from his first wife." Correction: The Pope gave the King a divorce from Katherine of Aragon, Henry’s first wife. However, he failed to give him a divorce from Anne Boleyn, his second wife, which led to Henry’s framing Anne for adultery and having her head cut off.

Mrs. Patricia Kelly
Lynwood, Illinois

Editor’s note: It is true enough that the Mayflower sailed from Southampton to Plymouth before crossing the Atlantic, but that does not alter that fact that the Pilgrim Fathers "departed for America from Plymouth." However, if the honour of being the Pilgrims’ ultimate starting point is the issue, then the credit would most properly go to Leiden in Holland. No less than 53 of the 102 passengers to America began the journey from Leiden. It was their vessel, Speedwell, which required the stopover in Plymouth, not the Mayflower. Eventually, Speedwell was deemed unseaworthy, and Mayflower departed Plymouth alone, carrying the smaller ship’s passengers as well as her own. Of course, there’s no reason to regard any of these facts as being disrespectful of Southampton’s role in history.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to