|
|
|
The following documentation summarizes the linages of Gross families in England as they existed in middle-ages England prior to the immigration of Edmund Gross to Virginia in 1658. The task of compiling Edmund's ancestry is far from complete and there is no doubt critical information to be discovered and evaluated. However, the nature of information thus far discovered indicates that it is unlikely that a completely proven line of Edmund's ancestors can be assembled. But it also seems likely that Edmund's probable ancestors can be narrowed to several alternative lines that provide a reasonably accurate perspective of his origins. Genealogical research on middle-ages [i.e., 500-1500AD] English families is a frustratingly slow process. The information reported herein has required some ten years of research and may well continue for a comparable period before all avenues of potential information have been exhausted. Thus, it seemed appropriate to summarize at present what has been discovered in order to provide an organized working hypothesis for further research and to provide other researchers with a framework to evaluate and from which to launch their own research. I have taken two liberties with names. Except where quoted directly from documents, all references to the numerous spellings of our family name (i.e., Gros, Grose, Groose, le Gros etc.) have been altered to Gross. Likewise, I have used Edmund as the name for those cases where the name is spelled Edmond. Although these liberties may insult historical accuracy, they do not significantly alter the intentions of this document. In the summary pedigree, solid lines connecting individuals indicate reasonably trustworthy lineages between the individuals so connected. Dotted lines connecting individuals indicate individuals that are, with reasonable certainty, members of the family line through which the lineage runs but have not been shown with reliable information to be the actual progenitors or ancestors of the individuals connected by solid lines. Individuals connected with double solid lines may actually be the same individual that lived in two different areas at different times. Although the results to date are less than hoped for, research on middle-ages English Gross family lines has a much greater probability of producing positive results than is the case for the majority of other surnames. Thus, researchers on the early Gross families in England can be, comparatively speaking, reasonably well rewarded. A perspective of family history research in the middle-ages in England is aptly summarized in the following abstracts from the book Norfolk Manorial Lords in 1316. BEGIN QUOTE Between the Survey of 1086 and the Exchequer Books of 1166, there is very little documentary evidence of the grant of manors except in a few royal and ecclesiastical charters. Lay tenants-in-chief usually granted lands to their sub-tenants by word of mouth in the presence of their followers who acted as witnesses. Then there is the difficulty of identification. Of the 500 tenants mentioned in the survey only about 125 are given surnames at all, and of these only some sixty can be regarded as hereditary surnames. There are, however, about a score of families mentioned in the Nomina Villarum which can show a certain or very probable descent. Of the thirty-two "Companions of the Conqueror" whose identity can be proved, only three held lands in Norfolk. They were Richard Fitz Gilbert, William de Warenne, and Ralf de Tony. The above are the only certainties, but the following have a highly probable claim. William Hauteyn, who held Oxnead in 1316, seems almost certainly to be descended from Godwin Halden, who held the same manor in 1086...It is also very probable that Hugh Peverel was descended from Rainulph Peverel, who held the same manor of Great Melton in 1086, that Nicholas de Beaufeu came from Ralph de Bella Fago, the Curzons from Robert Curzon, the Le Gros from Willelmus Grossus,...The names of most of these families can be found in the few early twelfth-century records that are extant, and they seem to be the only surnames common to both the Survey and the Nomina Villarum. The names of the following Nomina Villarum families are mentioned: Beaufoy, Bec, Berningham, Bigot, Bokenham, Bosco, Butevilain, Cailli, Caletrop, Cokefeld, Colvill, Chiefrevill (Chervill), Curzon, Elingham, Fitz Osbert, Fitz Walter, Le Gros,... As there is no reason to believe that the tenure of the Abbey fees was exceptional, it seems to infer that the majority of the 1166 fees, unless they are definitely stated to be of the new enfeoffment, were held by the same families as at the end of the reign of Henry I. [1134]. The Visitation families numbered 356, but only fifty-six of these bear the same names as their predecessors, and it is not certain that they were all of the same families. Of about half, we can be fairly confident. They are Bekkeswell, Blundeville, Brampton, Breton, Bozun, Calthorp, Castell, Curzon, Gurney, Hacon, Harsick, Hastings, Howard, Kerville, Le Gros,... The number of families holding land from the Survey of 1086 to the Visitations at the end of the sixteenth century can be counted on the fingers of one hand. They are the Curzons, Le Gros, Lovels, Reymes, and possibly the Banyards, and all these seem to have disappeared as landowners in Norfolk by the end of the seventeenth century. They may, of course, have left cadet branches in other counties. The first four answer all the tests that are usually applied to check the status of medieval families. Their names are to be found in Domesday Book, 1086, the Exchequer Books of 1166, the Testa de Nevill of the thirteenth century, the Nomina Villarum and Book of Aids of the fourteenth and the Visitations of the sixteenth centuries. There must, of course, be very many descendants of the younger sons and daughters of the 440 Nomina Villarum families, but once families become divorced from landed property it is very difficult to trace them, especially in the Middle Ages. Those who are interested in fourteenth-century nomenclature will note that over 300 of the 440 families mentioned in the Nomina Villarum have territorial names usually taken from the Norfolk villages where they presumably resided when surnames were generally adopted, i.e., about the end of the twelfth century... Among the great Norman names like Bigot, Warenne, Beaufoy, Bainard, Tony, and Bardolf, there are some curious nicknames, such as Burgolioun (the braggart), Le Breton, Le Car, Corndeboeuf, Le Gros,...The Norman prefixes are dropped in the next century, as will be seen in the Paston Letters, De Gray becoming Grey, Lestraunge, Strange, and Le Gros, Groos, an early instance of the Norfolk pronunciation of the long "o" which has not altogether ceased even at the present day. As pointed out in the foregoing quotes from Norfolk Manorial Lords in 1316, tracing genealogies during the middle-ages in England depends heavily on land records and the Grosses were one of the ancient English families whose names appear frequently in land records during the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Then beginning in the fifteenth century and developed extensively in the sixteenth century, England's "common folks" typically used wills to bequeath their possessions, especially land, to their surviving family members. The Grosses living during these time periods left numerous wills that, although written in old English script that in some cases is all but indecipherable except to the expert transcriber, contribute critical information for piecing together the family lineage. In the middle of the sixteenth century, England began the practice of recording births, deaths, and marriages in parish records. These parish records, particularly those in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, contain valuable information on the make-up of individual Gross families. And lastly, historical English documents of all sorts contain numerous references to Gross family relationships that represent mini-pedigrees. Unfortunately, there seems to be no extensive pedigrees on the middle-age English Grosses except for one major line that lived in Norfolk County. The summary pedigree presented below has drawn on all of the foregoing sources. The primary purpose of this summary pedigree is to lay out what seems to be the most likely line of descent from the individual who with reasonable certainty (as pointed out in Norfolk Manorial Lords in 1316) was the progenitor of all Grosses in England (i.e., [1] William Gross) to our Virginia immigrant Edmund. Thus, many individuals who are connected to the summary pedigree, but who apparently do not figure in the direct linage under investigation, are not shown. The summary pedigree in the section labeled [AA] covers a three hundred year period from the time of William the Conqueror's invasion of England in 1066 to about 1400. The lineage in this section is based primarily on information in ancient land-holding records. The key individuals in the land-holding records are two Grosses who are referenced in the 1087 Domesday Book as William Gross and as William son of Gross (actually William fitz Gross). William Gross is labeled [1] William and William son of Gross is labeled [2] William in the summary pedigree. According to the Domesday Book, in 1087, [1] William held the following lands: In the village of Chawston in Bedfordshire County (Volume 20) In the village of Fersfield in Norfolk County (Volume 33) According to the Domesday Book, in 1087, [2] William held the following lands: Dagworth Manor in Suffolk County (Volume 34) (co-held with Roger Fitz Gross) Witham Manor in Essex County (Volume 32) Kelvedon Manor in Essex County (Volume 32) (included a large village and Westminster Abbey) Bockington Manor in Essex County (Volume 32) (included a small village or hamlet) Benton Hall in Essex County (Volume 32) (included a manor house and St. Edmund's Abbey) Bonnington Manor in Kent County (Volume 1) These lands apparently came into the possession of [1] William as a result of military service under the Conqueror. The Redbook of the Exchequer, Volume 1 of 1166, also mentions two Grosses, a William Gross and a William son of Gross. The William Gross (actually listed as Willelmus Grossus) is listed as having held lands in Norfolk and Bedfordshire Counties previous to the Domesday survey and at the formation of the survey. The William son of Gross is listed as having held lands as an under-tenant in Kent, Essex, and Suffolk Counties only at the formation of the survey. Since the land locations held by these two Grosses were in the same counties in both documents, it is assumed that both documents refer to the same William Gross and William son of Gross. The William son of Gross, is obviously a different person than the William Gross of the same document, holding lands in different counties than William and with neither of the two holding lands in the same county. [2] William's Essex County manors were probably in the same locations as the current villages of Kelvedon, Witham, and Bocking, which are located within eight miles of each other, and all are located about fifteen miles southeast of Colchester. The William Gross listed in the Redbook of the Exchequer is labeled as "j militem." The Latin word "milites" originally referred to landless soldiers of the Norman garrison, but during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they had developed into a land-owning aristocracy, and though far fewer in numbers than their predecessors, they had acquired much greater power and prestige. Thus, it is certain that William the elder (i.e., [1] William) was a soldier under the Conqueror. Since William son of Gross apparently did not hold lands prior to the initiation of the Domesday Survey, it is not clear if the William son of Gross received his land as the result of being a soldier during the conquest battles (or after the conquest battles), or if he was the son of the William Gross who was a soldier during the battles, and received his lands as a result of this relationship. But regardless, it is reasonably certain that there were two successive individuals named William that apparently head our family tree in ancient England. The land-holding records for [2] William may provide some indication of the family's place of origin in Normandy just prior to the invasion in 1066. The land records indicate that [2] William was an under-tenant in four of the six land holdings listed in the Domesday Book (i.e., Bonnington, Dagworth, Kelvedon, and Bockington). In all four holdings, the tenant-in-chief was Hugh de Montfort. The following statements from the book The Normans and the Norman Conquest (by R. Allen Brown) indicate the potential significance of the relationship between a tenant-in-chief and his under-tenants: BEGIN QUOTE The actual process of the Norman settlement was one whereby the confiscated lands, usually en bloc and often already scattered, of an English lord were granted to a new Norman beneficiary... ...the new king first enfeoffed his companions and his vassals with their honors, and they subsequently and in turn enfeoffed their own men upon them. By the end of the Conqueror's reign all England save the broad estates of the king himself and the Church had been parceled out to the new lords who held the lands granted to them as fiefs, that is to say on conditional tenure from the king in return for military and other knightly service. By 1087, also, the subsequent and secondary process of "sub-infeudation" had gone far, similarly based upon the fundamental concept of the fief or fee..in response to the social pressures upon them no less than upon the king to reward followers and companions with that land which was the substance of wealth and power and status, enfeoffed upon similar terms of conditional tenure their own knights and vassals upon their estates. Thus modern scholarship increasingly shows the neighbors and presumed tenants of a great lord in Normandy becoming also tenants and vassals of the same lord in England, having, we may suppose, followed him as members of his contingent to England and to Hastings, as the great lords themselves followed the duke. There is reason to believe that the Norman knights fought in groups or contingents, or "conrois", under their lords (hence the gonfanons?...) But because most of the knights of the first generation of the Norman Conquest, whether serving under lay or ecclesiastical lords, were successful in obtaining the fiefs of their desires... In the beginning the fief was not hereditary, and was scarcely to become so as of right in England before the reign of Henry II and the assize of mort d'ancestor. Charters of enfeoffment are very rare in the first generation of the Norman Conquest when such conveyances at least in the lay world still generally depended for their validity solely upon the visual and oral ceremony of commendation, investiture and seizin, but before they became increasingly commonplace in the course of the twelfth century... Thus, the enfeoffment of substantial land holdings from Hugh de Montfort to [2] William suggests that [2] William was not only a soldier under Hugh, but that he was, either himself or through [1] William, a vassal under Hugh in Normandy. The book The Domesday Book: England's Heritage Then and Now (edited by Thomas Hinde and published in 1995), which presents a summary from the most recent (1975) uniform translation of the original Domesday Book, states that Hugh de Montfort was from Montfort-sur-Risle, Eure in Normandy. This apparently means that Hugh de Montfort was from a place called Montfort that was located on or by the river Risle in the Eure district of Normandy. It is likely that the Normandy Grosses lived in the same immediate area. The river Risle heads near the town of L'Aigle about seventy-five miles west of Paris and flows generally northward for about fifty miles before it empties into the south side of the river Seine a few miles upstream from the town of Honfleur. The location of ancient Montfort has not been determined with certainty but the place was probably in the same location as the current village of Montfort-sur-Risle, which is located on the east bank of the Risle River about eight miles upstream from the larger town of Pont-Audemer (shown on most current maps of Normandy). Pont-Audemer is about eight miles upstream from where the Risle River empties into the Seine River. [2] William did not hold all of his lands as an under-tenant to Hugh de Montfort because the Domesday Book indicates he was tenant-in-chief of Benton Hall. Benton Hall is the only one of [2] William's holdings that is listed as having a Manor House and thus it may have been [2] William's primary residence. This also seems to indicate that [2] William had sufficient recognition by the Conqueror to have been enfeoffed as a tenant-in-chief. [1] William and [2] William apparently are the two generations where the ancient Grosses of England divided into two distinct branches. [2] William held lands primarily in Suffolk, Essex, and Kent Counties. The lineage from [20] Hugo/Hugh through [21] Geoffry, [22] William, to [23] Walter and [325] Robert, and then from [23] Walter through [28] Hugh and [30] John/[31] William/[32] Thomas is well documented as holding lands continuously in Essex County. Thus, it is likely that the [20] Hugo/Hugh branch descended from [2] William who initially held lands in the same county. The line from [23] Walter through [28] Hugh and [30] John/[31] William/[32] Thomas went extinct on the male side with the deaths of the latter three individuals in 1367 and 1368, but as discussed in a following section, another branch of this family line apparently survived to leave descendants in the same area. Although the Grosses held lands in Essex County for some three hundred years, the latter generations did not hold the same lands held by [2] William. After 1087, there is no indication that the Grosses held Dagworth, Witham, Kelvedon, Bockington, Benton Hall, or Bonnington. It is documented that the de Montfort family lost possession of their primary lodging place in County Kent, Saltwood Castle, early in the twelfth century when they opposed Henry I (1100-1134). If the de Montfort family lost the rest of their enfeoffments, then no doubt their under-tenants also lost their enfeoffments, in which case [2] William and/or the descendants of [2] William would have also lost their original land holdings. But, by the time that Hugh Gross' (labeled [20] Hugh in the summary pedigree) name began to appear in the Essex County records between 1210 and 1239, the Essex line of Grosses had come into the possession of, at least, the manor of Great Bentlegh which they apparently held for about one-hundred and fifty years. Records have thus far not been discovered that indicate how the Grosses came into the possession of the manor of Great Bentlegh and lesser holdings that are not specified by name in the records. However, the Grosses must not have followed the Montforts into political disfavor with the ruling monarchy because they continued to hold lands. It is interesting that Great Bentley is only about eight miles west of Colchester, and thus is only some twenty miles from the location of [2] William's original land holdings. [1] William held lands primarily in Norfolk County but also in Bedfordshire County. The line of Grosses beginning with [3] Reginald held extensive lands primarily in Norfolk County. Thus it appears that the [3] Reginald Gross line descended from [1] William who initially held lands in the same county. The separation of the two family lines is indicated in the book Knights of Edward I which refers to Sir William Le Gros, Knight, of Essex County (labeled [22] William in the summary pedigree) and Sir Reginald Le Gros, Knight of Norfolk County (labeled [7] Reginald in the summary pedigree). Since no other Grosses were listed in the book, it is suggestive that during the reign of Edward I (1272-1306) [22] William and [7] Reginald were heads of the only two Gross families that held land. The patriarch of the Norfolk County branch is Reginald Le Gros as defined in most pedigrees and shorter biographical sketches. A coat-of-arms is described for Sir Reginald Le Gross but not for Sir William Le Gross. Sir Reginald's authority to bear the family crest indicates that the progenitor of his line was senior to the progenitor of [22] William's line. The Norfolk County Grosses held their lands from the time of another Reginald (labeled [3] Reginald in the summary pedigree) in the mid-1200s through Thomas Le Gros, who died in 1670 without leaving male heirs. In 1736, the last of the considerable ancient Gross estates in Norfolk County passed out of the family line into the possession of the Walpole family. There is a third individual that was apparently a member of the Gross family in 1087. In the Dagworth Manor section, the Domesday Book (according to The Domesday Book: England's Heritage Then and Now) lists the holding as "Hugh de Montfort and Roger and William Fitz Gross from him." This apparently means that both a Roger Fitz Gross and a William Fitz Gross were under-tenants holding Dagworth Manor. This Roger Fitz Gross is labeled [373] Roger in the summary pedigree. Thus, it appears that [373] Roger and [2] William were brothers. As discussed in a following section, a Roger Gross (labeled [374] Roger in the summary pedigree) was living in Suffolk County in 1258, but he could not be the same [373] Roger that co-held Dagworth Manor with [2] William because of the time span involved. [374] Roger was likely a grandson or great grandson of either [373] Roger or [2] William. Other than the one mention of [373] Roger in the Domesday Book, there is no other occurrence of his name in the early records. As mentioned in a foregoing section, the continued presence of Grosses in the Colchester/Great Bentlegh/Grinsted/Mistley areas in Essex County indicates that the Gross family line in the area did not terminate with the deaths of [30] John, [31] William, and [32] Thomas in 1367-1368. Evidently there was another member of the family who left descendants in the areas. One possibility is a Robert Gross (labeled [325] Robert in the summary pedigree) who, according to the Windecker-Gross pedigree, was a son of [23] Walter. This father/son relationship must be viewed with caution since no source has thus far been found that verifies the Windecker-Gross claim. However, there are other individuals that could have a connection to either [22] William and/or [23] Walter. The earliest member of one line was Nicholas Gross who held lands in Colchester and Grinsted. This individual is labeled [326] Nicholas in the summary pedigree. [326] Nicholas had a son William (labeled [327] William in the summary pedigree), and [327] William had a son Robert (labeled [328] Robert in the summary pedigree). Although the lands held by [326] Nicholas' line were in the same location as the lands held by the line from [2] William through [31] William, there is no objective information to indicate who [326] Nicholas' immediate ancestor was. Based on the individuals thus far identified in Essex County during the mid to late 1200s, there are two possibilities for [326] Nicholas' immediate ancestor. Since [326] Nicholas had a grandson named Robert (i.e., [328] Robert in the summary pedigree), a likely candidate for [326] Nicholas' immediate ancestor is Robert (labeled [325] Robert in the summary pedigree), who was supposedly a son of [23] Walter. The other possibility was a Thomas (labeled [338] Thomas in the summary pedigree) who lived in Essex County and was contemporary with [22] William. Another Essex County individual that is difficult to place in the pedigree, but who could have a place in our direct lineage, was a Thomas (labeled [329] Thomas in the summary pedigree), who was contemporary with [327] William and [328] Robert. Since both [326] Nicholas and [329] Thomas held lands in Colchester, a possibility is that [329] Thomas was a son of [326] Nicholas. The final Essex County individual that may have a place in our family lineage is a William (labeled [330] William in the summary pedigree) who was living in Great Bentlegh in 1428. Although it can be assumed with a degree of certainty that [330] William was a descendent of the Colchester area Grosses, there is no objective indication of his immediate ancestor. He may have been descended from either [329] Thomas or [328] Robert. The option would lean more toward [328] Robert since [328] Robert's father was named William. [330] William is the last Gross (thus far identified) that is mentioned in land records associated with the Colchester/Great Bentlegh/ Grinsted/Mistley areas in Essex County. This sudden cessation of land records for Grosses in Essex County may indicate that the family relocated to some other area. A likely possibility, as discussed in the following sections, is that [330] William moved to the Lydd area in Kent County, just south of Essex County. Section [BB] of the summary pedigree contains the Gross family pedigree as currently understood for the family in the Lydd area. In 1439, the name William Gross (labeled [272] William in the summary pedigree) began to appear on the Chamberlain's Account Books in Lydd. This was eleven years after the book was established and thus seems to indicate that the Grosses were not living in Lydd prior to 1439. For the next sixty years, the names William Gross, Thomas Gross, John Gross, and Laurence Gross appeared regularly in the Chamberlain's Account Books. At least two of these four individuals, Thomas and John (labeled [271] Thomas and [334] John, respectively, in the summary pedigree) are known to have been sons of [272] William, and two others, Laurence and William (labeled [270] Laurence and [338] William, respectively, in the summary pedigree) were probably his sons. It is also documented that [270] Laurence had a son Thomas (labeled [335] Thomas in the summary pedigree). Four of the six Gross individuals died in Lydd: [272] William in 1464; [270] Laurence in 1497; [271] Thomas in 1501; and [334] John in 1504. After 1500, there is no indication of continued presence of the Gross family in the Lydd area, and it is likely that the two individuals apparently living at that time ( i.e., [338] William and [335] Thomas) relocated to some other area. The summary pedigree section labeled [CC] summarizes the Gross family lines as they are currently known to have existed in the Kelsale/Theberton/Middleton/Dunwich/Ufford areas of Suffolk County and in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk County, from about 1524 to 1600. The family lines in section [CC] are potentially important in our family lineage because of the occurrence of the name Edmund, and are traced out for the purpose of evaluating each of the Edmunds as our possible immigrant Edmund. Other than the William Gross (labeled [372] William in the summary pedigree) who died in Kelsale in 1460, there is no indication (thus far discovered) that any Gross families lived in the Kelsale/Theberton/Middleton/Dunwich/Ufford areas between 1460 and 1524. The book Able Men of Suffolk in 1524 lists nine Grosses: two Williams (labeled [252] William and [68] William), two Roberts (labeled [252] Robert and [99] Robert), two Johns (labeled [236] John and [73] John) , two Thomas' (labeled [253] Thomas and [67] Thomas), and one Lawrence (labeled [75] Lawrence). Wills left by several of these individuals, plus reasonably trustworthy information from other records, indicate that [251] William, [75] Lawrence, [100] John, and [67] Thomas were the patriarchs of these family groups. The wills also indicate that [75] Lawrence, [100] John, and [67] Thomas were brothers and [251] William may also have been a brother. The occurrence of Gross brothers named Lawrence, John, and Thomas, and possibly William, in the Kelsale/Theberton/Middleton/Dunwich/Ufford areas shortly after individuals of the same name lived in Lydd (and then apparently left Lydd), poses the likelihood that the four Kelsale/Theberton/Middleton/Dunwich/Ufford patriarchs were at least in part the same individuals that were in Lydd immediately prior to this time period. This likelihood is enhanced because of the relative rarity of the name Laurence/Lawrence during the period. Thus, it is likely that [335] Thomas of Lydd and [67] Thomas of Dunwich/Ufford, were the same individuals. The occurrences of the name Robert in the Kelsale/Middleton/ Dunwich/Ufford Grosses may further support the speculation that these Grosses were descendants (through the Lydd Grosses) of the Colchester/Great Bentlegh/Grinsted/Mistley Grosses in which the name Robert also occurred. Evaluation of the three individuals in Section [CC] named Edmund indicates that none of the three could have been our immigrant Edmund because: [142] Edmund died in England. [80] Edmund would have been over one hundred years old in 1658. [81] Edmund would have been eighty three years old in 1658, which is an unlikely age for an immigrant. Section [DD] of the summary pedigree shows the known and hypothesized family lines of a group of Grosses who lived primarily in Northampton County, and in one branch had an Edmund (labeled [283] Edmund) that is likely to have been our immigrant Edmund. The two patriarchs of this family group appear to be a Richard Gross and a Thomas Gross (labeled [339] Richard and [340] Thomas, respectively, in the summary pedigree). There is not enough information currently to indicate whether they were father and son, brothers, or cousins. Three individuals which appear to represent the next generation (after [339] Richard and [340] Thomas) are a John Gross, a Roger Gross and a Richard Gross (labeled [324] John, [341] Roger, and [345] Richard, respectively, in the summary pedigree). There is no objective information to indicate who the immediate ancestor was for either of these three individuals, but the father of the three was probably either [339] Richard or [340] Thomas. [324] John's descendants are well documented, and it is certain that [283] Edmund was [324] John's grandson. [283] Edmund's known birth date would have made him 22 years old in 1658, a typical age for the immigrants that came into Virginia in the mid seventeenth century, whether or not he came as an indentured servant. Also, he was probably not married in 1658 which would account for no wife being listed as a co-immigrant in the Virginia records. As indicated by birth/christening entries in parish records, [344] Roger was the only one of [324] John's sons that continued to live in Northampton County. It is reasonably certain that at least one of [324] John's sons, [324] Gedion, moved to Hackney, a section of London. Circumstantial information suggests that another two of [324] John's sons, [346] Robert and [348] Richard, also moved to the London area. In 1600 in St Andrews parish in the Holborn section of London, a Robart Gross is listed as the father at the christening of a son John. In the same parish in 1603, a Richard Gross is listed as the father at the christening of a son, also named John. These two children may have been named after their grandfather. The Holborn section is about five miles from Hackney where [278] Gedion, brother of [346] Robert and [348] Richard, lived from at least 1614 to 1636. In 1608, the St Andrew parish records also list a Nicholas Gross as the father at the christening of a son John. A following section suggests where this Nicholas Gross may fit in the family line. In 1627, a George Gross and his wife Elizabeth are listed as parents at the christening of a daughter Shusan. George also probably belonged to the family group. The area where these four Grosses (Robert, Richard, Nicholas, and George) lived is about two miles from Hackney. A fifth individual that may have been a member of this Gross family was a John Gross who is listed as the father of children whose births/christenings were recorded in the St. Boloph Without Aldgate parish records between 1582 and 1617. St. Boloph Without Aldgate (as indicated on a current London map) was only a few hundred yards from St. Andrews parish where the other four Grosses lived. This John Gross had a son named Nicholas who was born in 1582 and who could have been the Nicholas of St. Andrews parish. Both of these parishes are about one-half mile due north of the Tower of London. There is a situation involving the given names of individuals in this group of Grosses that adds circumstantial support that the Grosses of these parishes were members of a group that immigrated to Virginia in the 1600s which also included our immigrant Edmund. Among these family groups the following given names are listed in the parish records: Samuell, Richard, Nathaniel, and George (and of course Edmund from the St. Johns parish records in Hackney). These five names are the same as five of the eight Gross individuals who immigrated to the same general area in Virginia (i.e., New Kent and Isle of Wight Counties) between 1637 and 1668. Currently there is no information to indicate the progenitors of the Northampton County Grosses. However, the commonality of the given names Robert, Nicholas, George, and Edmund in the Northampton/London Grosses with the given names of the Grosses in the Colchester/Great Bentlegh/ Grinsted/Mistley and the Grosses in Kelsale/Melton/Dunwich/ Ufford suggests that the Northampton County Grosses came from these Grosses in Kent, Essex and Suffolk Counties. If so, since the Northampton County Grosses (in the persons of [339] Richard and [340] Thomas) apparently arrived in Northampton county by the early 1500s, they were in a generation commensurate with the generation of Grosses that lived in Lydd or the early Kelsale/Melton/Dunwich/Ufford Grosses. Other information in Essex and Hampshire County parish records supplies circumstantial evidence for the ancestry of the Northampton County Grosses. In Great Bursted, Essex County, a Richard Gross and wife Marie are listed as parents of a son Richard christened in 1624. In the St. Botolph parish records of Colchester, a Robert Gross was married to Mary in 1621 and then to Elaine in 1624. In Southampton parish records, Hampshire County, a Lawrence Gross and wife Alles are listed as parents of sons Lawrence, Richard, and William in 1568. Although there is no indication that these three Grosses descended from the earlier Grosses in Kent/Essex/Suffolk Counties, the commonality of given names with the earlier families is suggestive of descendancy. Since this combination of given names has not thus far been discover in the Gross lines in other geographic areas during this time period, particularly in the Norfolk County lines, it is likely that the names Richard and Robert in the Northampton/ London Grosses were derived from namesakes in the earlier Kent/Essex/Suffolk County Grosses. One other tidbit of information is suggestive that the Northampton/London Grosses descended from the line of Grosses that apparently successively lived in Essex, Kent and Suffolk Counties. As discussed in a previous section, [373] Roger Gross was living in Suffolk County in 1087 and [374] Roger Le Gross was living in Suffolk County in 1258. These two individuals may have been the namesakes of the several Roger Grosses that lived in Northampton County. All of these given names are characteristic of the Gross line in which [2] William was the probable patriarch. The names are not, from records thus far reviewed, characteristic of the Norfolk County Grosses in which Reginald was the patriarch. Thus, regardless of the indefinite status of intermediate progenitors, our immigrant Edmund was probable a descendent of [2] William. Section [EE] of the summary pedigree contains all of the other Grosses named Edmund that have thus far been identified in English records. Evaluation of the fate of these individuals as our immigrant Edmund is as follows: [238] Edmund was born far too early. [275] Edmund died in England [113] Edmund immigrated to Boston, MA in 1634 and died there. [284] Edmund would have been about fifty years old in 1658. He had been married and should have had a family at the time of immigration. Since no wife or children were listed as co-immigrants in the Virginia records, he is probably not our immigrant Edmund. |
