Douglas, Thomas ^152,211,213

  General Notes:

An entry (40 76) of Smith MS held by the Society of Genealogists gave a rather illegible address for Thomas. It appeared to read "Square Flintshill".

The same entry stated that he was a Barrister at Law and also contained an illegible word that could have been "brief" followed by ": Charles II". It remains to be discovered whether this means that Thomas was briefed by Charles II.

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:57:56 -0000
From: "Tracy Little" <tracy@oldmanse1.freeserve.co.uk <mailto:tracy@oldmanse1.freeserve.co.uk>>
Subject: Re: DOUGLAS in Reeth and other families

I've finally got my head around the bundle of papers which arrived on
Christmas Eve and have extracted some names etc which may be of wider
interest.

First I have a single page document dated 8th October 1728. This is a
conveyance whereby Thomas DOUGLAS the elder of Reeth, Martha his wife and
their son Thomas DOUGLAS the younger, make over the possession of a piece of
property in Reeth to Marmaduke DOUGLAS (he crops up in that Metcalfe will
Denny). The two Thomas' and Martha all signed it and all three had their
own seals to affix. Witnesses were Cholmley DOUGLAS another son of the
family, somebody ALLSOP (might be Geo.) and Will. BLACKOLOCK (or similar).
The description of the property is "...frontstead(?), piecs or parcell of
ground situate and being in Reeth aforesaid abutting upon the tenement or
dwelling house in the occupation of the said Thomas Douglas the elder on the
east, and upon a frontstead(?) belonging to Robert Wensley on the west."
I'm not sure about "frontstead" - is that a real word? Does this sound
like just the land or does it imply a building? I was assuming from the
mention of a "dwelling house" that the other two properties mentioned were
just land.

From: "Tracy Little" <tracy@oldmanse1.freeserve.co.uk <mailto:tracy@oldmanse1.freeserve.co.uk>>
To: "Dr B Turner" <bturner@occmed.com.au <mailto:bturner@occmed.com.au>>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [dalesfhs] Re: DOUGLAS (the surname!) & church history query


> Hello Beryl
> Glad to be of help. I'll see what I can do about a photo, but as I said
it
> may be a little while as I don't have a digital camera and if I use the
> ordinary one it'll take me forever to finish a film under normal
> circumstances!
>
> Although Townend Hall sounds impressive I must warn you that it's just a
> large farmhouse, not an ancestral mansion! Many houses round here are
> called "Hall" but it refers more to a style of building rather than the
size
> of the place. Have you ever looked at the Genuki Yorkshire pages? There
> are quite a lot of pictures of the local villages on there which will give
> you some idea of the area. Colin Hinson who maintains the pages has an
> elderly mother in Grinton so he comes up a lot and takes photos. I can't
> remember the exact address but I'm sure it's on the dales fhs site at
> <http://www.bishopdale.demon.co.uk>
>
> The piece of land mentioned in the conveyance is on the south of the
village
> green and is now the site of the Congregational chapel. (See pictures on
> Genuki page etc!) The story is (tongue firmly in cheek here) "the
original
> chapel was built on the site of a medieval church and incorporated some of
> the stones into the building". And my grandmother was the Queen of Sheba
> etc.....
>
> My scepticism arises from the lack of the slightest shred of evidence in
any
> local church records that there was ever a church nearer than the parish
one
> at Grinton a mile away. However plenty of local people believe it, while
> others, with equally deep roots, have never heard of it. The first
written
> mention is in a very disreputable History of Yorkshire by a 19th cent
writer
> prone to "improving" history and others then quoted it and added their own
> theories to the melting pot. Last time I public doubted the story it
> provoked an irate letter to the paper from a 92 year old who knew it was
> true because her parents had told her and they wouldn't have lied! Well
> quite, but they might have believed it themselves, that doesn't make it
any
> truer!
> Another old lady has pointed out to me the carved heads on the outside of
> the present building as conclusive proof because they "must have come"
from
> the medieval church. If so they're the best bit of well preserved stone
> carving in the UK, unless they were inside a previous building.
>
> However, to get back to the Douglas connections! In the last couple of
> months the church deeds had to be inspected and the first document turned
> out to be the conveyance mentioned on the list, between Thomas and Martha
> DOUGLAS and their son Marmaduke. The only logical assumption is that it's
> there because it deals with a piece of land now part of the church
property
> and this is borne out by some of the descriptions and names which also
crop
> up in the later deed of 1797 which deals with the actual setting up of the
> church.
>
> That casts the "medieval" story in a whole new light. If the land
belonged
> to the Douglas', did they have a private catholic chapel in the house
> (illegal at the time)? The house was then partially demolished to build
the
> Congregational church in the later 18th cent and it is known locally that
> the Catholic chapel had existed on that site. I suspect that the
> Congregationalists of the time might well have seen that as "converting"
the
> building quite literally, rather in the same way that the early Christian
> missionaries to Britain "converted" the holy wells etc. In time the story
> of a "catholic" chapel came to be understood or misinterpreted as
"medieval"
> and take on a whole new pseudo-history.
> I had a chat to a local historian just before Christmas and bounced some
of
> my wider theories off him! Surprisingly he was quite encouraging (must
have
> been the Christmas Spirit). He pointed out that at the period we're
looking
> at, around 1728, the religious situation was in turmoil. The
> Congregationalists had only got religious freedom in 1690, Catholicism was
> still banned and the (Catholic) Scots were constantly trying to invade.
> Don't forget that in 1745 Bonnie Prince Charlie got as far south as Derby
> (that's over 100 miles south of here). Consequently it could have been
> generally common knowledge that someone had an illegal chapel in their
home,
> but no-one was going to shop them to the authorities because within a
matter
> of months the tables could have been turned, a Catholic back on the throne
> and the Protestant churches all in hiding.
>
> Sorry for the history lesson, but that's a general summing up of rather a
> lot of discussion on and off the list! Much of it is speculation but it
> would certainly make a lot of sense and explain the roots of the chapel
> story if it all arose from the Douglas' recusant tendencies. So anything
> you can tell me about their religious habits will be another little piece
of
> the story!
>
> I'll be happy to send you a copy of the conveyance if you can let me have
a
> snail mail address as I don't have the means of scanning it.
>
> Jonathan is in Canada by the way and must be some very distant relative of
> yours! I think he's perhaps descended from the family of Thomas' wife
> Martha as his surname is Kirton, unless that's a coincidence.
>
> Best wishes
> Tracy (in very wet and windy Swaledale)

^157,305

  Noted events in his life were:

• Occupation: Barrister At Law.

• Chart: Of Reeth, Yorkshire, Barrister To Charles II.

Thomas married Martha Kirton, daughter of James Kirton and Lucy Unknown. (Martha Kirton was born in 1660 of Reith,¹⁵² died in 1744 in Grinton, Yorkshire, England ¹⁵² and was buried on 1 Aug 1744 in Grinton, Yorkshire, England ³⁰³.)