I am afraid that my quotations from memory, in my letter of Saturday, were
_not exactly correct_; for on examining Lipscomb's _Buckinghamshire_
to-day, I find that it is stated (vol. iv. pp. 4-7.) on the monument of
Samuel Cranmer at _Astwood Bury_, that he was "descended in a direct line
from Richard Cranmer, elder brother to Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury;"
and that it was found, on an inquisition held on April 7, 1640, that his
son and heir Caesar Cranmer (called on the monument "Sir Caesar Wood At^e
Cranmer, Kt.") was his heir at six years of age. This Caesar was knighted by
Charles II., and died unmarried; so that his sister, Lady Chester, was
evidently the representative of this branch of the Cranmer family.
Now, with regard to this statement on the monument, in the first place it
is discrepant with Lady Chester's epitaph at Chichley, which (Lipscomb's
_Bucks_, vol. iv. p. 97.) expressly declares that she derived her descent
from the archbishop. In the next place it appears from Thoroton's _Notts_,
that the archbishop had no elder brother named Richard. His elder brother's
name was John; who by Joan, dau. of John Frechevill, Esq., had two sons,
Thomas and _Richard_. Could this be the Richard alluded to? In the third
place, in neither of the pedigrees alluded to is there given any connexion
with the family of Cranmer of Aslacton. And, lastly, it is opposed to the
uniform tradition of the family. Now, if any of your readers can clear up
this difficulty, or will refer me to any other pedigree of the Cranmers, I
shall feel extremely obliged to him.
With the exception of the points now noticed, my former letter was
perfectly correct, and may be relied on in every respect.
I may mention that these Cranmers were from Warwickshire. The monument
states that Samuel Cranmer was born at "Aulcester" in that county, "about
the year 1575."