Talk:John Wildman

Untitled
Can anyone say which place called Exton he was arrested at? Saga City 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Tarchon can you or someone fill out the footnote to 'Waylen' - What book is this? A more common source for Easton near Marlborough is Wildman's only biography: M. Ashley, John Wildman: Plotter and Postmaster (1947)p.90

Strangely, Bulstrode Whitlock in his Memorials ((1732,) p. 618) says this:

'Major John Wildman was seized upon by a party of major Butler's horse, and carried prisoner from Edninston near Farington, where he was taken, unto Chepstow-castle. They found him in his chamber (the door being open) leaning upon his elbow, and dictating to his man, who sat writing by him. They seized the papers, that which the man was writing was sent up to the protector; it was thus entitled and written: 'The declaration of the free and well-affected people of England now in arms against the tyrant Oliver Cromwell, esq.'

User:Elliot Vernon
 * It's in the references list - James Waylen, A history, military and municipal, of the town (otherwise called the city) of Marlborough and more generally of the entire hundred of Selkley, Volume 1, London: J.R. Smith, 1854. http://books.google.com/books?id=mU2_n2vqkPkC&ots=Hx8dCbDXtd&pg=PA277#v=onepage&q&f=false I didn't footnote it because the original reference style of the article uses that more APA-like endnote style instead of autoreferences. Generally, you're supposed to pick one style and use it throughout, so you should either go with the flow or convert them all. Waylen quotes the original MSS, and the cited quotation I had in there originally was directly from it, although someone decided to take out that original primary source quotation and replace it with a speculation from a secondary (probably really tertiary) source. Tarchon (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tarchon, thank you for that. The source Waylen is citing is the original (which he has cleaned up) in the Thurlow State Papers (the calendar of which has been reproduced electronically by British History Online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=55365&strquery=Wildman#s26 Search for Boteler). This contains some additional notes by Thurlowe on Wildman's plotting. User:Elliot Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.143.91 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Marriage Issue
The more I look at primary sources, the more convinced I am that DNB really screwed up this account of Wildman's marriages. H.I. Richmond did a good job of collecting the evidence, and these are some relevant bits he quotes:

"3 Oct 1653. Adms. granted to Lucy Wildman als Richmond dau. and adtrix of Anne Richmond decd. To finish the admin. of the Est. of Anthony Richmond." (No source given, but presumably PCC or a lower Berks. court)

"1 Oct 1656 Fol. 258. Com. to Lucy Wildman, wife of John Wildman, Esq. dau. of Anne Richmond of Ashbury, Berks, widow, decd." (PCC Pembroke 44)

(both H.I. Richmond, v.3, p. 102)

These seem pretty conclusive to me. The other problems with her being Lovelace's daughter are that the first Baron (Richard) died in 1634, at around the age of 70, while the second Baron (John, 1616-1670) first married in 1638. Clearly, the hypothetical Lucy Lovelace could only have been Richard's daughter. Richard had three children by his 2nd and much younger wife whose names are widely agreed on, John (2nd Baron), Francis, and Elizabeth. Elizabeth married the regicide Henry Martin, born around 1602, a generation earlier than Wildman. None of this excludes the idea that Lucy was the daughter of Richard Lovelace, but the dates just don't fit very well, and Richmond's evidence flatly contradicts it. Wildman's will mentions his wife Lucy Wildman and further orders that his heirs "shall pay the same respect to her as if the said John Wildman had been born of her body, she having merited the same from him in all things since infancy." (Richmond v.3, p.136) It is clear then that the first wife died when John Jr. was very young, perhaps in childbirth. Wildman and his wife are also described as "uncle and aunt Wildman" in the will of Leonard Bucknor (Jr), a merchant of London, 1669 (PRO ref Prob/11/337). Leonard Bucknor's father, Leonard Sr., made John Wildman, Esq. his executor in his 1656 will, and the parish register of Bampton, Oxon. shows that Leonard Bucknor Sr. married none other than Mary Richman (a common variant of Richmond), who was Lucy Richmond's sister, according to H.I. Richmond. To further cement this argument, Wildman's own will leaves "To Leonard Bucknor son of my said wifes sis. 500 li and to Wm. Bucknor his bro. 100 li." The best I can figure is that some early DNB contributor confused John Wildman with Henry Martin, who really did marry a daughter of the 1st Lord Lovelace, or else the Lovelace was Wildman's first wife. Tarchon (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sterling work - I believe that Richard Greaves, the author of the ODNB article, used the unpublished History of Parliament biography as his source. I think your arguments are convincing but there is a manuscript in the Marten collection (calendered in HMC 13th Report Appendix IV) where John, Lord Lovelace refers to Marten as his brother(in-law) and Wildman as his son (in-law), see:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67165&strquery=John%20Wildman

I believe the original DNB used the HMC Report to make its conclusion - This evidence does not show that a DNB author confused Wildman with Henry Marten - but given the confusion over Frances Roper, it is, as you say, possible that Wildman's first wife was a Lovelace (but son in law would mean a daughter of John Lord Lovelace).

Incidently, on the Frances Roper point - the 1812 edition of Collins's peerage is available on Google books and this has John Wildman esq of Becket, Berks marrying Frances, daughter of Christopher Roper, 4th Lord Teynham and Mary, daugher of Sir Frances Englefield (Collins's Peerage of England Vol.VII p.85).

Beckett is the correct address for Wildman, but during the wrong period. As the article says, Wildman did not acquire this property (indirectly) until 1655 and directly in 1666, so in addition to what the article correctly says about the age of the Christopher Roper being incorrect - the address is listed at the wrong time for Frances Englefield to marry Sir John Wildman. It is possible that the date would be correct for John Wildman Jnr. The only mystery here is that the junior Wildman is said to have only married one woman - and not Mary Englefield.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HVY5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA77&dq=Roper+of+Teynham&hl=en&ei=qGBQTIGUCsmrsAa1z8nDAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Wildman&f=false

User:Elliot Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.229.216 (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That letter probably is where they get it, so that at least establishes which Lord Lovelace it was supposed to be. "Son" could mean either what we now call a step son or son in law. Wildman Sr.'s father was still alive at the time his will was written, so that eliminates the remote possibility that Lovelace married Wildman Sr.'s mother. I wonder if the letter is misinterpreted or ambiguously reported. Perhaps "authorizing him to agree with his brother [in-law] Marten and his son [-in-law] Wildman" should be read as "his [Lovelace's] brother [in-law] Marten and his [Marten's] son [in-law] Wildman." Marten was a generation older than Wildman, so that makes more sense. Marten's 3 oldest daughters were apparently born before 1634, when Elizabeth (Lovelace) Marten died, so by 1656, they certainly would have been old enough to marry. Marten also married (secondly) a widow named Margaret Staunton, so if she had a daughter who had married Wildman, it could be "his [Marten's] [step] son". The only other alternative I can see is that somehow a marriage of one of the 2nd Baron's daughters (Anne, Margaret ca 1644-1671, and Dorothy d. 1684) to Wildman escaped notice - of those, it could only have been Anne since Margaret and Dorothy both married otherwise. Anne was probably the eldest daughter since she had the same name as her mother and is supposed to have died s.p.. She could have been born around 1639 and married Wildman at 17 I suppose, but it seems unlikely. Tarchon (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is some amateur genealogy (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~amandataylor/pafg15.htm) that suggests that Margaret Staunton did in fact have a daughter with William Staunton, named Margaret, who would be Marten's stepdaughter. Of Marten and the widow Staunton's daughters, Anne (1636), Jane (1638), and Francis (1640), only Anne is of credible age, as Wildman certainly married his first wife before 1653, but Anne died childless. Hurley, Berks. christening records have Margaret (1629), Elizabeth (1632), and Mary (1634), daughters of Henry Martin, who is almost certainly the regicide since Elizabeth Lovelace's family was from Hurley.


 * Wildman's lengthy will (somewhat badly transcribed at http://www.stepneyrobarts.co.uk/139290.htm) is fastidious about providing for kith and kin, so I'm sure someone in it must be related to his first wife. He provides for old Henry Marten, Lucy's sisters, several of their children (Gardners, Smiths, Phillips, and Buckners), his aged father in Norfolk, and a curious spinster niece, one "Elizabeth Sadler". H.I. Richmond doesn't know of any of the Richmond sisters (Lucy Wildman, Mary Buckner, Elizabeth Smith/Phillips, Jane Gardner, Day (dsp?), and Anne) marrying a Sadler, though he could have missed one. Thus Elizabeth Sadler is (A) Wildman's sister's daughter (B) Anne Richmond's otherwise unknown daughter or (C) Wildman's first wife's niece. She came right after the wife, son, and father in the will with a commensurate legacy, so she's pretty high up on the priorities. She was still alive in 1706 when Wildman Jr. made his will. Wildman Jr. names three Westrew sisters, Mary, Dorothy, and Bennet, as his sisters and Thomas Westrew as a brother, perhaps through his wife, Elenor Shute (nee Westrew?). Lots of clues, but the lack of direct evidence is quite odd. I think that points to one of Marten's daughters as well, since I can understand why one wouldn't go out of one's way to point out that one's grandfather was Henry Marten. It's also worth noting that Wildman provides very explicit instructions for his son and wife to look after Henry Marten in prison, so Wildman was probably already keeping his old friend (and father in law?). Tarchon (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Elizabeth Sadler probably was in fact the daughter of Anne Richmond. There's a marriage on 22 SEP 1653 in Madingly, Cambridge of "Anne Richman" to John Sadler. Not conclusive, but the names and date are dead on, and Wildman was a Cambridge man. Tarchon (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the first marriage is somewhat of a mystery - It probably arises from the Marten connection as Wildman and Marten are the two main names in Marten's cipher key dating back to November/December 1647. The HMC report also shows that Anne Richmond (which as you have shown was Lucy Wildman's mother) was either Marten's tenant or Marten was her tenant (1654 entry) and that Lucy Richmond wrote to John Dove (or is it to Marten?) in January 1649 in support of Mr Thornton recovering property - So the Richmond-Wildman connection appears to be via mutual dealings with Marten.

If Wildmann married Lucy Richmond in 1653, the first marriage would have taken place between the later half of 1648 and 1653 - he was at University until 1644, was probably in the army in 1645. In 1647 (at the time of the Putney debates) he was only living in lodgings at the Saracen's Head Tavern in Friday Street, London and was imprisoned from January to August 1648 on a charge of treason. In September 1648 he was on the committee that debated the 'Second' Agreement of the People. At no time in these proceedings is a wife mentioned and, during his imprisonment, there is no petition from a wife. This would suggest that Wildman's first marriage was between 1649 and his marriage to Lucy c.1653 - when he moved from being a Leveller to a property speculator. These circumstances bear out the hypothesis that Wildman's first wife died in childbirth, leading to a relatively quick marriage to the recently orphaned Lucy. Elliot Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.19.244 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Marriage Issue (2011)
At the moment the article says "While the ODNB's identification of the first wife is merely questionable, it certainly errs in its suggestion that Lucy was the daughter of "Lord Lovelace". " This is OR, because Wikiepdia is not qualified to make such statements in the passive narrative voice, it needs to be made as an opinion of a reliable secondary sources. Much of the rest of the paragraph seems to be based on information extracted from self published sources which are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia. I think we need to look at this further to see if the section can be reworded in such a way that it can be added as a footnote without sounding like OR and without being based on unreliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I have found the Berkshire History site to be very reliable and, as a local history, website, it provides information that is difficult to find in published works elsewhere or is just not available. It includes recent research, such as this, which is unlikely to be found in hard copy publishing, although I think the author has written a couple of works. After all people have been ignoring Richmond's research since 1933. Be this as it may, if you want hard copy references, I'm not sure what to do about the first marriage, but suppose the ODNB ref will do. For the second marriage I suggest that, in the family section, it is changed to Lucy daughter of Anthony Richmond with the Richmond reference only. If you read Richmond, it is very clear that he is correct. He cites his sources very clearly whereas the ODNB and Ashley do not. I think the marriage section is useful, but to avoid OR it probably needs rewording. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that the ODNB is a modern authoritative sources on this. I know that they make mistakes and indeed one inconsistency that I have pointed out to them has been forwarded by the editors to the author (That was based on inconsistencies between different the information contained it several biographical articles within the ODNB). While Henry Richmond writing in 1933 may have it right we have to assume that Richard Greaves writing in the ODNB in 2004 and correcting the article written by C. H. Firth for the DNB in 1900, had access to all the reliable sources you have considered. If so he will have read Richmond (1933) and decided not to go with his findings.

Wikipedia has clear policy on the issue of David Nash Ford publishing articles on his own website (WP:SELFPUBLISH). There is also a further problem with his site when relying on it for this type of analysis:

Two of the three of them are based on the DNB this means that when they are being used to find against the ODNB we have problems, particularly as one of them was published in 2001 three years before the ODNB. You would need to look up the same articles in the ODNB to see if they support the facts and if so then they can be used to contradict this ODNB article. The other article is based on a 1911 publication which is 100 years old and again was published 3 years before the ONDB article was published.

N.1 above differs from the DNB in saying: "Wildman married, firstly, Frances, the youngest daughter of Sir Francis Englefield Bt of Vastern Manor at Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire (NOT, as sometimes recorded, the daughter of Christopher Roper, 4th Lord Teynham, who was actually married to her sister, Mary). Her father was the grandson of John, the brother of Sir Francis Englefield of Englefield House, the famous servant of Queen Mary. Wildman's second wife was Lucy, the daughter of Anthony Richmond of Idstone at Ashbury (as proved by Henry I Richmond, NOT, as sometimes recorded, the daughter of Richard Lovelace, 1st Lord Lovelace of Hurley, which is, no doubt, due to confusion with the wife of Henry Marten)."

The initial sentence is not given a reference but it is for the first wife and is the same as that in the ONDB so we can put that to one side. The second sentence consists of two parts the wife which he sources to "Henry I Richmond" and speculates that it is "due to confusion with the wife of Henry Marten".

There are some other problems with the current MC section "and this is confirmed by the Richmond arms on the ledger stone above her grave in Shrivenham Church" what the sources says is "Lucy predeceased her husband by only six months and is buried at Shrivenham under a stone bearing the arms of Wildman impaling Richmond." But it does not carry a citation from this statement, so we only have it from an unreliable source.

So I think the thing to do is drop the mention of the DNB finding, as outdated, keep the ONDB sources and then footnote the view of "Henry I Richmond" as an alternative to the ONDB. The actual paragraph with your research can be moved to the talk page so that it is available to others, either to help them find another authoritative modern source, and  if not then hopefully there will be a better biography published at some future date that can clear this matter up with an analysis of the primary sources (such as the grave markings etc) and contradict the ODNB. -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote 22 biographies for the ODNB - and I have to say, I often had a matter of a couple of weeks to get them finished. I would not take it for granted that authors of ODNB articles had access to all the sources, or had the time to look for new research - especially the obscure stuff like Richmond. I knew the late Richard Greaves when he was writing the Wildman article and he used the article prepared for the History of Parliament, which itself used Ashley. The ODNB may be an 'authoritative' source but the Richmond evidence is superior and backed up by citations. I have no reason to doubt it User:Elliot Vernon.

Served in Thomas Fairfax's Army
Any source for this? Wildman's name does not appear in officer or muster lists of the New Model Army.

Putney Projects in a Misleading Place
Why is Putney Projects, which came out on 30 December 1647 placed before the Case of the Army, the Putney Debates and Agreement of the People - it misleadingly suggests that Wildman wrote this before these preceding events/publications. I have added the date to remove this confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.35.33 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)