Pearson, Christopher, of Branthwaite in Dean (-1591)

IN PROGRESS

Summary

There are two principal sources for Christopher Pearson of Branthwaite - his probate and the Dean parish register.

He was probably born between 1534 and 1544 (based on his first marriage and a 25-35 year range).

He was married twice: to Jane Emetson in 1569 (recorded) and to an Agnes in 1579/80 (unrecorded), who was his relict at his death.

He had four children: William and Janet from Jane; and Mabel and Ellinor from Agnes.

He was churchwarden at Dean.

He wrote his will in March 1590/1. The inventory was taken 23-03-1590/1. The bond was dated 10-06-1591.

So he was aged, say, 56-66 at his death.

Marriages

The register has only one marriage for him (to Jane Emetson* 30-05-1569) but his probate shows that he was married to an Agnes at his death. Jane was buried 15-11-1578. Presumably his second marriage was in a neighbouring parish, and quickly, as the resulting children were baptised in 1581 and 1586. Agnes was buried 03-11-1606 (as 'uxor Pearson de Branthwaite': i.e. 'wife/widow of Pearson of Branthwaite').

We can be pretty sure that the first marriage belongs to him because he owed money to a brother Peter in his inventory - and Peter Pearson married Jane Robinson 10-08-1567, just before him.

The dates all fit together neatly.

* note: there is probate for an Alexander Emettson of Arlecdon in 1587, that I haven't seen, and this includes a will. Apart from this instance, Emetson as a surname is much more northerly, The surname is most likely an error in the transcript of the Dean register, as an Emerson family lived at Great Clifton in Workington. This family would have been within the kinship groups of the Pearsons. Unfortunately, none of their probate (again, unseen) of the period includes wills.

Branthwaite

His location comes from his probate bond, dated 10 June 1591, which appoints [in Latin] 'Agnes Pearson relict of Christopher Pearson native of Branthwaite' as his administrator.

Status as Churchwarden

His status is highlighted by a debt owing to him in his inventory.. The office of churchwarden implies someone in the upper ranks of yeomanry.

Family

The inventory specifically mentions a brother Peter. He, as already stated, married Jane Robinson in 1567. Presumably the John Pearson that he owed money to (above) is the same person as the John Pearson who was appointed a 'supervisor' (below).

Christopher had four children: William, Janet, Mabel and Ellinor. William and Janet are mentioned in the will, Mabel and Ellinor were protected in the probate bond as minors.

There is evidence to suggest that William was born before his parents' marriage.

In the register transcript, a William Pearson was baptised in 01-01-1569 (at this period, the register seems to be following a January-December dating). If the date is right, this presents a problem - his parents only married in May.

This may explain why Christopher mentioned in his will that William was to inherit with the 'lisence' of the lord of the manor (meanig that the permission of the lord had already been obtained).

A child with natural parents born before they were techically married might have been considered illegitimate so far as automatic customary inheritance was concerned, but so long as the family didn't object and the lord was happy, there was no reason why he couldn't inherit by legacy.*

William was also given the plough gear and the ambry. These two items reinforced and restated Christopher's intent that William was his heir.

The baptisms of the others were: Janet 01-08-1571 , Mabel 30-04-1581 and Ellinor 16-01-1586 (as Ellen).

* I understand from Eve McLaughlin that there would have been some sort of public ceremony between conception and birth (possibly involving gifts), acknowledging the child and expressing intent to marry, and this would have provided legitimacy under Church Law, but not automatic inheritance under Civil Law.

Supervisors

Both a William Pearson and a John Pearson were appointed supervisors of his will, which suggests a close family relationship, maybe brothers, maybe uncles. They may have been there as neutrals, favouring neither one side or the other, as the four children were all equally family to them.

The other supervisors were John Rogers and the eldest son William.

Supervisors may have been appointed because Agnes, his second wife, was executor of his will. John Rogers, probably her relative, would have protected her interests and those of her children; William would have protected his own and those of his sister.

It may be that there was bad blood between Agnes and William. She became his stepmother when he was about 11, and his father died when he was about 22. There was plenty of room for awkwardness at least. Agnes would have had widow's rights over one-third of the property for her lifetime (provided she didn't remarry), so William might have been stuck with her for most of his life, had she not died in 1606. Still, that's 15 years of potential acrimony.