Hoo's who

She is also ancestral to a New England family

The Ancestry of Mary Isaac, C. 1549-1613: Wife of Thomas Appleton of Little Waldingfield, Co. Suffolk and Mother of Samuel Appleton of Ipswich, Massachusetts

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ep5pAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA62&ots...

Mary Appleton

Let's discuss what we know first.

(1) The Toke family has siblings Ralph, Thomas, and John, and there's a father John for all of these.
(2) Father John (b. 1404) supposedly married Joyce Hoo, who's the child of a Lord Hoo, but which Lord Hoo is unspecified.
(3) Ralph Toke was given a birthdate of 1430 by somebody, not sure who, but that sets an approximate birthdate for Joyce between roughly 1400 and 1412.

So, where can Joyce plausibly fit in the Hoo landscape so that she could have such a birthdate?

We do not have documented birth dates for John Toke and his son Ralph Toke. Probably all dates you see in profiles are estimates.

For John, who married Joyce Hoo, we know

"John Toke lived in the reign of King Henry V, 1387-1422 and King Henry VI, 1421-1471"

That is, he was born before 1421. That's all we got so far.

Thomas their 1st son has a firm death date range: between December 3, 1473 and April 1, 1474

First date I've seen in this area.

There are some event dates here of Tokes in Dover - index page https://books.google.com/books?id=typJAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA260&ot...

Dover charters and other documents in the possession of the Corporation of Dover
By Dover (England) page 260

I believe the earliest is a John Toke in 1412

https://www.dover.uk.com/history/1916/annals-of-dover/the-mayors-an...

47) Thomas Toke, Mayor in 1472, was a son of Ralph Toke, a former Mayor.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6zMQAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA166&ot...

1444 - 1448 Sir Ralph Toke, Senechal and Marshall of D.C.

Good references to the Hoos from a current medievalists site

www.tim.ukpub.net/pl_tree/ps08/ps08_404.html

This is a vanity reference - in the profile for yet another descendant James Tooke, of Jamestown

Pedigrees of Some of Emperor Charlemagne 's Descendants by J. Orton Buck, and Timothy Field Beard, 1978, published by the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne,

24)Sir Thomas Hoo born before 1420 died 1485/6 wife unknown was half brother to Thomas, 1st Lord of Hoo and Hastings. Lord Hoo's daughter Anne became the great grandmother of Anne Boleyn, 2nd Queen Consort of Henry VIII, King of England, and mother of Elizabeth I, Queen of England;

25)Joyce Hoo married John (Toke) Tooke of Bere Parish, Westcliff County, Kent, Temporary of Henry V, King of England, and son of John Tooke of Bere and Elizabeth Malmayns, and was 7th in line from Robert de Toke who was at the Battle of Northampton; (Clutterbuck's Herts II, 351).

Are the dates from the Hoo side of things any more solid in Geni? I thought they'd have to be because of the tie-in from nobility as you go back.

Regardless of whether birthdates are present or not, you can't ram 10 generations into a time frame that can only support 7, hard as you try. ;-) So even without supported birthdates, for whatever arrangement we consider we need to be able to assign rough birthdates and have it all work out. And, since there are other descendents of the Hoos, we need to settle their approximate birthdates first -- and those of the Tokes - before we can find the right parent for Joyce.

Are there marriage dates for any of the Toke brothers? For the Hoos? What about for their children? Do we believe the birthdates in the tree for the several Lords of Hoo and, even more importantly, their wives? Which of the approximate ones are well constrained by later/earlier generations? Which aren't? I'm going to have to go over what's there with a fine-toothed comb this evening to suss that out, and when I do I'll create a table of people and birthdate ranges for distribution in this discussion. But I'm back to work today and that can't happen until later.

About the half-brothers Thomas, I do recall an earlier comment you made about Joyce being a "niece" of Lord Hoo. I wonder if this is what was meant.

What I see so far is that Geni is consistent with the Visitations, which is good -- no invented people - but those have no dates. :). The Geni tree is also consistent with the published studies such as Magna Carta Ancestry and Burke's. However we already know some of the difficulties with the Hoo pedigree.

Joyce Hoo is called "daughter of the Lord Hoo's brother," in one Visitation, his 2nd brother, In another, he's named Sir Thomas. Stir net suggests that the correct Lord Hoo is not yet identified.

The John Hoo the MP her husband might be difficult to find more records on. The two elder sons though, Thomas the heir, who inherited the estate at Bere, and Ralph, who seemed political in Dover, might be more on them.

Took, I mean. There's a suggestion this Kent family is an offshoot of the Notts family. Heraldry will also play a part. I have seen Hoo arms so far, but did see Malmaine.

So according to Goodwin Davis, Joyce Hoo's 2nd son Ralph Toke (who was not a knight) was born about 1410, died in 1451. That would mean Joyce Hoo was born say 1390.

Some date analysis for the Tokes:

The Tokes:

A John Toke: b. 1421 (?) (Dover charters and other documents in the possession of the Corporation of Dover By Dover (England) page 260.)
John Toke (m. Joyce Hoo): before 1421 (For John, who married Joyce Hoo, we know: "John Toke lived in the reign of King Henry V, 1387-1422 and King Henry VI, 1421-1471")
First son Thomas Toke: d.December 3, 1473 - April 1, 1474 (Thomas their 1st son has a firm death date range: between December 3, 1473 and April 1, 1474)
First son Thomas Toke "mayor of town" in Sept 1473 (Dover charter)
Son Sir Ralph Toke: senechal and marshall from 1444-1448 (1444 - 1448 Sir Ralph Toke, Senechal and Marshall of D.C.)
Son Sir Ralph Toke Esq "mayor" on July 30, 1447 (Dover charter)
Son Sir Ralph Toke "mayor" on Feb 20 1447 (Dover charter)

We can surmise that the Tokes were likely 25 or older when given job of "mayor", and eldest Thomas Toke died in office apparently, so let's set the end range of their birthdates as follows:

- Thomas: to c. 1418
- Ralph: to c. 1420

The start range gets set by John Toke needing to fit in the reign of Henry V, so if he was born 1387 he'd be able to marry and father children no sooner than c. 1407. So we have:
- Thomas: c. 1407 - c. 1418
- Ralph: c. 1409 - c. 1420
- Father John: c. 1387 - c. 1398

The John Toke b. 1421 in the Dover docs looks like it may be John Jr's birthdate, which would also constrain the Ralph's and Thomas's somewhat further. What do you think? Can we go with this birth order: Thomas -> Ralph -> John Jr, and do you agree with initial birthdates as follows:

John Jr: 1421
Ralph: c. 1419
Thomas: c. 1417
John Sr: c. 1396

Or we can continue to use ranges if you prefer, but then I'd increase the start of the range for Ralph and Thomas some four years from my previous post, and decrease the end of their ranges by a year (set by that 1421 value).

Note also that this probably gives a good estimate for marriage date and hence birthdate of mother Joyce Hoo: m. c. 1415, b. c. 1395. Could be earlier but probably not by much.

Erica Howton, for some reason your latest posts only appeared to me just now.
I'd say we were in pretty good agreement about dates. Mine are deliberately scrunched as far possible toward the later side; yours are consistent with the ranges given, though on the earlier side. If we bow to authority and take 1410 for Ralph, though, then 1421 for brother John seems late. Let's compromise and pick 1415 for Ralph, 1413 for elder brother Thomas, a marriage date of 1411 for John and Joyce, a birthdate of 1390 for John Sr., and a similar birthdate for Joyce. Work for you?

I feel pretty good about dates for the Tokes.

The dates for the Hoos, though, are on crack -- they're clearly nonsensical and they differ from the overviews also. I guess that's the next area to delve into.

If those dates can be modified then it seems plausible to have relationships precisely as they are right now in Geni, except trying to capture the fact that Joyce is supposed to be the niece of Lord Hoo rather than the daughter. Dates for Joyce's grandparents look fine and within reason for these relationships.

We are definitely hitting it on the Toke's [puns intended]. The 1st John who married Elizabeth Mailmaines has citations with a birth date of 1378 [not sure if the originals are estimates]. I believe they actually meant refer to John who married Joyce Hoo.

But wait! Goodwin Davis is amazing, and through his study of the Dover documents & property transactions has more goodies for us. Ralph's widow and next husband dealt poorly with his estate and describes property. It makes me wonder if any of it was originally Hoo property willed to 2nd son by the mother.

To get to dates, I think we can range Joyce's children's birth dates around Ralph's say 1410. Remember Thomas is 1st son and heir so should be say 1408. John Jr say 1415.

Joyce is never described as a daughter of Lord Hoo but as a niece, variously as daughter of 2nd brother or Sir Thomas. I think it likely Joyce was promoted by local historians the same way Ralph her son was, and we should be looking for a "lord of the manor" Hoo with brothers - not a peer of the kingdom - and "geographically" in Kent.

I agree. I did almost precisely as you suggested for dates in the tree, with the exception of setting John Jr's date to 1421.

So who are the candidates for Lord of the Manor Hoo?

Here's a possibility for a parent for Joyce? Thomas de Hoo

I haven’t done more than read or re read the hoo profile overviews and resolve conflicting data on Hoo profiles as yet. Also looked at hoo Visitations. But I haven’t looked up tree too much (before Lord of Luton Hoo & Hastings). And I was looking mostly at the Thomases; now we know that the Sir Thomas Hoo may be spurious.

Yes that was one I looked at with interest.

Found another hard date - William, son of Ralph, son of Joyce Hoo

* iv. William Toke, the plaintiff of 1459-1466, when he was aged 23; m. Alice ; d. c. 1471.

Therefore her grandson was born say 1436. Latest Joyce could have been born is say 1396 (40 years earlier). But at the moment I'd put her earlier, closer to 1385

Can you add "William Toke" as a child of Ralph and "First wife"? Relationships appear to be locked.

I think William is second wife. The suit referred to says Elizabeth as mother.

It's hard to say for sure without wills. The language that survives affirms the sons of Ralph as brothers, describes Elizabeth as William's mother, and Goodwin Davis places William 4th of possible 5 children of Ralph. So that would make the 1st wife dead before 1436 and Elizabeth the mother of William and (likely) a Thomas Toky.

The Visitations order the children differently. I think we should go with Goodwin Davis.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ep5pAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60-IA4&...

After the death of Elizabeth Doyley her son William Toke sued Thomas Doyley as his father's executor and John Isak, John Oxenden and Thomas Toke, as his father's feoffees, for two tenements called Beltyng and Cosmersblene which he alleged were, according to his father's will, to have come to him at the end of his mother's life-estate. The pleadings in this case, which was entered between 1459 and 1466, disclose further facts about Ralph Toke's family and possessions. He had lands in the parishes of Westbere, Godmersdam, Cosmerysblene, St. Margaretsteye, Westclyff, Guston, Ewell and Bokland, called Russhebone, Lymburg, Estbere, Southbere, and Beltyng, with other tenements in Dover, whereof he had enfeoffed John Toke "now dede," Thomas Doyle, John Isak, John Oxenden and Thomas Toke. John Toke "brother of your besecher" died without issue. It is possible that Ralph Toke left four sons, for the feoffees state that "syth the death of the said Elizabeth [Ralph's widow] & John Toke (they have) been redy to deliver estate of the third part of the said lands to the said William Toke as one of the three brethren and heirs to the said Rauf after the custom of Gavelkynde," while William Toke describes himself as "one of the three brederyn and heirs of the said John Toke."*

-----

It's bothering me that I'm not seeing Hoo property, I think Goodwin Davis would have noticed?

"That would make the first wife dead before 1436..."

That's pretty different than the current tree, then. Second wife has no children. But I'll add William and update First Wife's profile if possible.

Elizabeth Duke is both a Duke in Dorset and a Took in Kent? You think ?

I have seen that spelling for "Toke" before, as well as "Took", "Tooke", etc. So I buy it.