The De Cicesters of Chichester

[Fiona67]

Hi
This is a huge long shot. Amazingly today I was able to trace my Chichester family back to Henry de Cicester b c 1095 Chichester. I was able to find that he had 2 sons Henry b c 1130 and Mathew b c 1135 however the IGI did not have a marriage for him. (There were quite a few generations in my search where the name of the wife/mother was missing). Is there anyway that I can find the missing spouses' names or should I just be thankful for what I have been able to find........being able to go back to 1095 is an amazing feat I know. I am in Australia so visiting the relevent archives is just not possible.

Regards
Fiona

[Jane M]

OMG Fiona, how brilliant to be able to get back so far...amazing
Mmm, I can't say I have any expertise with these early records but off the top of my head.....as there were no parish records kept of events such as baptism's, marriages & deaths for those dates you'll have to try another route. My thinking is to find mention of these people in other documents such as wills, land taxes or written history of that locale & period. The West Sussex Records Office (located in Chichester) has a searchable online database. If you draw a blank on that, contact them to see if they have any ideas or can put you in touch with a local historian who's familiar with that period.

https://www.westsussexpast.org.uk/searchonline/Index.htm

This is a nice article about Chichester.

https://www.localhistories.org/chichester.html

The local history & heritage department might also be able to help.

https://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4368

I checked the National Archives site but could only find reference to this name in Hereford. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

The British Library might have some documentation (Google & you'll find their site)
Bear in mind that anything you do find will probably be in Latin, so you'll need to brush that up

Best of luck,

Jane

[Geoffers]

This is a huge long shot. Amazingly today I was able to trace my Chichester family back to Henry de Cicester b c 1095 Chichester. I was able to find that he had 2 sons Henry b c 1130 and Mathew b c 1135 however the IGI did not have a marriage for him. (There were quite a few generations in my search where the name of the wife/mother was missing). Is there anyway that I can find the missing spouses' names or should I just be thankful for what I have been able to find

You may be able to fill in the missing gaps - but if the information comes only from the IGI, I would treat the information with due caution - depending on the source, it may be pure fiction.

I hope for your sakes that it is accurate, but you still need to follow the generations back.

There are possible ways of filling in the missing generations (even from Australia), but this will cost time and money in ordering copies of documents from The National Archives. To help by giving specific advice, could you first say how far back can you actually prove by documentation and through research you have carried out using original documents?

[Fiona67]

Hi Geoffers
Oh yes I do realise that the IGI is not always accurate and there wasn't sources that I could follow listed so I don't know for sure if it is accurate.
Burke's Peerage list Richard De Cicester being granted land in Sussex by King John (1199-1216) (Cor. Reg. Roll). Assuming Burke's Peerage is accurate, this is the last documented evidence that I have.
The IGI list his birthdate as being about 1190 and his father as Robert.

Regards
Fiona

[Fiona67]

Hi Jane
Thank you so much for those sites. I will check them all out and see what I can find

Fiona

[CharlesMortonMD]

Hi Fiona,

William Richard Drake did an excellent job of documenting certain branches of the Chichester Family, and that publication is on line here:

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...R=68423&REC=18

The line of individuals you are looking into comes as a result of the book entitled:

History of the Family of Chichester: from A.D. 1086 to 1870: including the descents of the various branches...., Alexander Palmer Bruce Chichester, 1871: from A.D. 1086 to 1870: including the descents of the various branches...., Alexander Palmer Bruce Chichester, 1871

William Richard Drake is very critical of the book, because no proof is shown, or can be found, to take the family to any earlier then that of the marriage between John Chichester and Thomasia Ralegh, parents of John Chichester born 1387.

Here is what he wrote:

The Chichester Family - Introductory Remarks.

It has been well observed[1] that "it were better in all cases that family history should " be written by
one of its members. He is the proper man to crown the Lar " with flowers, and is the natural historian of those whose blood he inherits. " The love of the subject, which is the root of all excellence in writing, can be so strong " in no man as in him." In the case of " History of the Family of Chichester: from A.D. 1086 to 1870: including the descents of the various branches...., Alexander Palmer Bruce Chichester, 1871,[2]" the name of one of its members (now deceased) appears upon the Title page; but the contents savour too much of ordinary pedigree compilation to admit of the belief that it is the result of any great research; neither does it bear the impress of that loving labour which gives to family genealogical works their greatest charm; for if so, some more extended record than the book affords would have found place in the pages; ------- Diaries would have been dug out from the dust of the family muniment (protected) chests, old letters would have been forthcoming, from which scraps of personal details and bits of local colour might be gleaned illustrative of the character, the habits of the thoughts of those whose names are chronicled.

Family history does not always afford materials for a work of sufficiently general interest to attract or instruct the public. It is not every family who can number amongst its members those who, by chivalrous deeds in war, by brilliant or useful services to the State, or by literary or scientific
attainments, have connected themselves with the history of their country; but there are few families with any pretentions to antiquity whose chronicles, if handled in a spirit of discernment, cannot be made interesting beyond the mere family circle; whilst as regards those that may be incapable of furnishing materials for producing such a result, a useful work for family reference may be compiled, provided that accuracy of detail is secured, and a due regard paid to the principle laid down by Sir William Pole, of giving authorities for the statements made, "because," as that learned and painstaking genealogist wrote[3], if I have erred I may manifest the ground thereof; " a sound precept, woefully neglected in the work now under consideration.

The "History of the Family of Chichester: from A.D. 1086 to 1870: including the descents of the various branches...., Alexander Palmer Bruce Chichester, 1871" was, shortly after its publication in 1871, reviewed by a learned Antiquary and Genealogist (my late friend John Gough Nichols[4]), who pointed out the errors which prevade the early history, as there given, of the Chichester family, and remarked, that as regards the antiquarian portion of the book, there had seldom appeared in print one in which "high aims have fallen so short in their performance." Many of the errors pointed out in the Review were, no doubt, the result of carelessness on the part of the writer, as, for instance, the misdescription of the contents of documents of which facsimiles are introduced to illustrate the text. Indeed, carelessness is apparent throughout the book, and often leads to serious misstatements, ex. gr., where a lady who had in 1620 a great grandson 18 years old, is descibed as the daughter of a man who was born in 1542 ! The entire absence of that searching inquiry which is essential in compiling a family history is also remarkable; as an instance, I may mention that in the extracts given from the Shirwell Registers, there is appended to a memorandum that the Rev. Wm. Chichester held the living from 1748 to 1770, the following note: "but there is no entry of his burial." Now this William Chichester was an important link in the descent of the Baronets of Youlston, inasmuch as on the failure of the elder branch in 1808, it was his grandson who succeeded to the title and estates. The most palpable inquiry would have shown that he was buried at Georgeham, a neighbouring parish, of which he was also Rector, and where he resided. Again, his wife is erroneously and loosely described as Mary, daughter of . . . . Bellermine, whilst a very apparent search would have disclosed the fact that she was the daughter of John Ballyman of Hart, in the parish of Heanton Punchardon, where the marriage is recorded. But the most serious defect of the work lies in the bold statements made for which no proofs are adduced, ex. gr., the allegation that the Chichesters, on the marriage of John Chichester with Thomasia, the daugher and heir of Sir John de Ralegh, abandoned theit ancient armorial bearings, and took those of Ralegh.

It would be an endless task to point out in detail, the defects in the book, which are apparent even to a superficial reader; defects, unfortunately, not counterbalanced by fulness of information, where the facts are in themselves correctly recorded. In truth, the "History" cannot be regarded as interesting, either in an antiquarian or historical view, nor can it be accepted as a reliable family record.

I cannot of course pretend to supply all the deficiencies which are patent in the "History of the Family of Chichester: from A.D. 1086 to 1870: including the descents of the various branches...., Alexander Palmer Bruce Chichester, 1871." To me, as a stranger, the family chests are closed[5]; But even if that were not so, my interest in the subject would not supply the energy wanting to undertake a task, the labour attending which, can only be appreciated by those who have attempted conscientiously to compile family memorials. There was indeed a time, forty years ago, when I entertained the idea of perpetuating the genealogical history of some of the Devonshire families in a manner similar to that in which Count Litta has recorded the pedigrees of Italian families[6]. Circumstances, however, combined with the drawback resulting from a non-residence in Devonshire and the consequent difficulty of obtaining local information, led to an abandonment of the plan I had formed. I have, however, from time to time gathered materials as they fell in my way, and "made note" of them; and it is from these notes that I am able to correct some of the many errors and supply a few of the grave deficiencies in Sir Bruce Chichester's book, whilst I have added to the information it contains, matter of interest and authoritative details tending to make it a more reliable record of the family than in its published state it can pretend to be.

I do not propose to discuss the origin of the name of "Chichester' (which was evidently local); nor to endeavour to unravel the confusion in which the "History" involves the parties deriving from "Cirencester" and "Chichester," inasmuch as there is not the shadow of evidence that the persons mentioned as ancestors had any connexion beyond, in some but not all instances, a similarity of name which, in the case especially of a derivation from a place, affords in itself no identity of consanguinity.

Nor do the Chichesters need any such enlistment of apocryphal ancestors; their indisputable pedigree is sufficiently ancient and respectable to satisfy any member of the family who desires to rely on something more certain than "the various traditions relative to the name," to which the writer of the "History" alludes in his preface. To use Sir William Pole's expression in referring to an attempt to enoble the Ralegh family by deducing their descent from a daughter of Edward I. : --- " they need no other father than such as begate " them, and not other mother then such as bare them."

I had at first intended that my notes should be supplemental to the "History", so as to form pages of Addends and Corrigenda to it; but that plan presented two drawbacks; first, it would involve the necessity of the reader having for the purpose of reference the pages of both works before him; and secondly, the continuity of the narrative would be broken, and so detract from its interest. I therefore determined on re-writing those chapters of the book which relate to the Youlston and Hall branches of the family with some of the early portion of the Arlington branch. In doing this, so far as I may have availed myself of the materials gathered by Sir Bruce Chichester, I beg to make my acknowledgments; but I would add that in the case of every public record which is mentioned by him and which I have
quoted, I have invariably referred to the original document and have in no instance trusted to the notice given, or the interpretation put upon it in the "History." I beg also to acknowlage my obligation to Mr. L. C. Webber-Incledon for his very valuable assistance in enabling me to complete, in a more perfect manner than I otherwise could have done, the account of the modern portions of the family, especially the Northover and Stokelake branches.

Signed, Oatland Lodge, Surrey, December, 1886. S.R. Drake

[CharlesMortonMD]

But on the other hand, Drakes book, linked to above, is a very rich source of transcribed parish records, wills and other documents that are valuable in proving your line down to Arthur Chichester who governed Ireland.

From then on Arthur Bruce Palmer Chichester's book contains information lacking in Drakes book.

By the way - my grandfather was a Chichester - I have hiom traced back to James Chichester of Huntington, New York, who probably came from Widworthy, Devon.

Charles Morton is not a blood relation, just a research interest of my own.