(Vol. i., p. 103.; Vol. ii., p. 485.)
_Jane_, Countess of Henry Neville, _fifth_ Earl of Westmoreland, was
daughter of SIR ROGER CHOLMLEY, of Kinthorpe and Roxby, co. York. (_Vis.
York. Harl. MS._ 1487. _fol._ 354.) She is often confused with his other
wife, Anne Manners, and also with her own sister, Margaret Gascoigne, both
in the Neville and Cholmley pedigrees as _printed_. (Burke's _Extinct
Baronetage_, art. _Cholmley_, and _Extinct Peerage_, art. _Neville_.) But
while the Manners pedigree in Collins's _Peerage_ (by Longmate, vol. i. p.
433.), as cited by Q. D., removes the former difficulty, that of Gascoigne
is disposed of by the Cholmley pedigree in Harl. MS. above quoted, as well
as by that (though otherwise very incorrect) in Charlton's _Whitby_, book
iii. pp. 290, 291. 313., and by the Gascoigne pedigree in Whitaker's
_Richmondshire_, vol. i. p. 77. Thus we possess _legal and cotemporary_
evidence who JANE, Countess of _Henry_, _fifth_ Earl of Westmoreland,
really was, without any authentic obstacle or unremoveable contradiction to
its reception, viz. that she was a _Cholmley_.
But I conceive your correspondent's identification is _totally_ erroneous.
It is true he only puts an hypothesis on the subject; but this hypothesis
has no solid foundation. In the first place, Henry, fifth Earl of
Westmoreland, died in 1549; and all authorities seem to agree that his
first wife was Anne Manners, and his second Cholmley's daughter. Thus, if
either of his countesses were living in 1585, it must have been the
_latter_, by which means all chance of appropriation is removed from
Manners to Cholmley. But I shall now give reasons for contending that
neither of these ladies was your correspondent's Countess of Westmoreland,
by referring him (2ndly) to Longmate's _Collins's Peerage_, vol. i. p. 96.,
where he will find that _Jane_, daughter of Henry Howard, the talented and
accomplished Earl of Surry, married Charles Neville, _sixth_ Earl of
Westmoreland. He has evidently passed her over, through seeing her called
_Anne_ in the Neville pedigrees: "Anne" and "Jane" being often mutually
misread in old writing, from the cross upon the initial letter of the last
name.
I offer it to your correspondent's consideration, whether his "Jane,
Countess of Westmoreland," was not wife of the said Charles Neville,
_sixth_ Earl of Westmoreland, who was attainted 18 Eliz. (1575-6). His date
is evidently most favourable to this view. It is true the attainder stands
in the way; but if even this affords an obstacle, the next candidate for
appropriation would be Jane _Cholmley_. Assuming, however, that your
correspondent allows this lady as a candidate for the appropriation, her
pedigree corroborates the claim. I have found, by long and minute
observation, that hereditary talent, &c. usually descends by the _mesmeric_
{269} tie of affection and favoritism, from fathers to the eldest daughter,
and from mothers to the eldest son; and the pedigree of _Jane_, Countess of
Charles, _sixth_ Earl of Westmoreland, stands thus:--
EDWARD STAFFORD, Duke of Buckingham; great,
good, and accomplished, and fell a victim to envy.==
|
----------------------------------
|
_1st Dau._ ELIZABETH, wife of Thomas Howard, third
Duke of Norfolk. ==
|
---
|
_1st Son._ HENRY HOWARD, Earl of Surry, the poet;
great, good, and accomplished, and fell a victim to
envy == as physical heir of his mat. grandfather.
|
-------
|
_1st Dau._ JANE, wife of Charles Neville, sixth Earl of
Westmoreland (and qu. the authoress in question?).
Besides being eldest daughter of the celebrated poet, the said Jane,
Countess of Westmoreland, was sister of Henry Howard, the learned Earl of
Northampton, her father's younger son--(some younger son, like eldest
daughters, generally inheriting, physically, in some prominent feature,
from the father).