George Lynne

1. George Lynne,
   of Southwick Hall,
   born 10th May 1594
   listed as age 13 yrs 3 months 16 days at inquisition into his father's death, 26th Aug, 5th James I (1607),
   succ his grandfather 1617,
   mar Mary Kirkham [born 1594],
   died c.1672, age c.78 yrs,
   had issue:
   1. John Lynne,
      of Southwick Hall, JP,
      born 1614,
      mar Grace Cade,
      detailed his aunt and grandparents in Herald's Visitation 1682 (essentially confirmed the entire structure here),
      died 11 Jan 1694 [using [NJ] date format, note that at the time this was regarded as the end of 1693], age 79 yrs,
      bur Southwick,
      had issue:
      1. George Lynne, ancestor of Lynne of Southwick Hall.

      2. Mary Lynne, mar Martyn Johnson [bapt 1652] and had issue.

   
   

2. William Lynne, born 1597,
   mar Elizabeth Whetenhall and had issue.

   
   

3. Martha Lynne, NOT Margaret,
   born est c.1601 (perhaps named after her grandmother, who had just died),
   mar John Blennerhassett and had issue.

Portraits

• The following portraits were in the possession of Everard Green in the late 19th cent.
  See The Genealogist, 1st series, vol.1, 1875-77, pp.62-63.
  1. PORTRAIT of Isabella Forrest.
  2. PORTRAIT of 3 children of George Lynne and Isabella Forrest.
  3. PORTRAIT of Mary Kirkham.
  4. PORTRAIT of John Lynne (born 1614).
  5. PORTRAIT of Grace Cade, painted 1640.
  6. PORTRAIT of William Lynne (born 1597).
  7. PORTRAIT of Elizabeth Whetenhall.

Controversy in the Kerry Evening Post, 1893

Essentially, Hickson is wrong, and Fuller, Foster and Green are right.

The first thing to note is that John Lynne is writing about his aunt, and writing in 1682. Black Jack is writing about his grandmother, and could be writing as late as 1737. So John Lynne's testimony is obviously more trustworthy.

In fact, Hickson fails to notice that Black Jack's tree (which is only a rough sketch) actually fits quite cleanly into John Lynne's (much more detailed) genealogy, with only a couple of corrections to Christian names needed. The exchange of letters is fascinating because Hickson is clearly wrong, but because Fuller makes a mess of his initial statement of the descent, he is never able to convince her.

Further points:

• The boy who was age 13 in 5th James I was Martha Lynne's brother not her father, as is obvious when you work out the estimated dates and ages. Much time is wasted on this "Martha as a daughter of Lynne and Kirkham" error.

• William, born 1597, is not "invented", but even if he was he couldn't be invented to serve as Martha's father! More time is wasted on this.

Send me additions and corrections to this site Updates (please include your name and contacts): Send me a file from your computer: If you don't understand this form, use the long version. Or just email me. Enter this password: