The Mystery of Mary Seymour Solved?

Posted By on June 21, 2011

Sudeley Castle, Winchcombe

Sudeley Castle, birthplace of Mary Seymour

Thanks so much to author Susan Higginbotham for pointing this History Today article out, I don’t know how I missed it!

In the article entitled “Point of Departure: An Unfit Traveller”, historian Linda Porter writes about the fate of Mary Seymour, daughter of Catherine Parr and her fourth husband, Thomas Seymour, and attempts to solve the puzzle of what happened to Mary.

As I have written before, Mary Seymour, who was born on 30th August 1548, disappears from the records at around the age of two. Mary’s mother, Catherine Parr, died of puerperal fever on the 5th September 1548, just six days after the birth of Mary, and Mary’s father, Thomas Seymour, was executed as a traitor on the 17th March 1549 leaving Mary orphaned at the age of just 7 months. We know that Catherine Parr’s friend, Catherine Brandon (née Willoughby), the Duchess of Suffolk, was appointed as Mary’s guardian because she appealed to William Cecil to talk to the Duke of Somerset about helping her with the upkeep of Mary’s household, which was the household of a Queen’s daughter and therefore very expensive to run. The Duchess must have been very relieved in January 1550 when an act of Parliament allowed Mary to inherit her father’s property – money would be forthcoming at last.

But that is the last we hear of little Mary Seymour, who would have been around 16 months old when she was allowed to inherit Thomas Seymour’s remaining property. She just disappears from the records and never claimed her inheritance. What happened to the little girl has always been a mystery up until now, but Linda Porter writes of a poem that might just tell us the fate of Catherine Parr’s daughter.

The poem, from a Latin book of poem and epitaphs written By Catherine Parr’s chaplain, John Parkhurst, in 1573, reads as follows:

“I whom at the cost
Of her own life
My queenly mother
Bore with the pangs of labour
Sleep under this marble
An unfit traveller.
If Death had given me to live longer
That virtue, that modesty, That obedience of my excellent Mother
That Heavenly courageous nature
Would have lived again in me.
Now, whoever
You are, fare thee well
Because I cannot speak any more, this stone
Is a memorial to my brief life.”

Linda Porter is of the opinion that, although no name is given, “this must surely be the epitaph that Parkhurst, who would have known Lady Mary Seymour, wrote on her death”. Who else could it refer to really? Linda Porter concludes her article by saying:-

“It suggests, as has long been conjectured, that she died young, probably around the age of two. She may well be buried in Lincolnshire, near Grimsthorpe, the estate owned by the Duchess of Suffolk, where she had lived as an unwelcome burden for most of her short, sad life.”

I find Catherine Parr’s story a sad one. She had finally married the man she loved only to die shortly after their daughter’s birth and then Thomas Seymour, without Catherine’s steadying influence, went and got himself executed as a traitor, leaving this little girl with no parents and living with a woman who really didn’t want her! Then to think that little Mary had such a short life! Very sad.

You can read Linda’s very interesting article at http://www.historytoday.com/linda-porter/lady-mary-seymour-unfit-traveller and I would highly recommend Linda’s biography of Catherine Parr, Katherine the Queen: The Remarkable Life of Katherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII. Also check out the guest article Linda wrote for us – Last But Not Least: The Enduring Fascination of Katherine Parr

57 thoughts on “The Mystery of Mary Seymour Solved?”

  1. Anne's Fan says:

    Oh that is so sad. Makes me want to cry.

  2. Morgan says:

    I wonder if the tombs/graves at Grimsthorpe have been researched. It does seem likely that Mary would have been buried there if she died there. It sure makes for a tantalizing mystery!

  3. Anne Barnhill says:

    I had read that she died very young–you know, if a child does not get the love it needs, there is that ‘failure to thrive’ syndrom with can end in death. I wonder if that’s what happened here…she was a financial burden and so little–babies are hard work. I don’t think Catherine Brandon would have harmed her intentionally but she could have been frustrated and allowed it to show–but that is just pure conjecture–the fiction writer coming out! Thanks so much–I had never seen that poem and it does seem to explain things.

  4. Anne Marie says:

    I love these articles that touch on one of the many mysteries of the Tudors and their contemporaries. It’s almost as if we wish we could go back in time and give this young victim of circumstance a happy ending. If it is indeed the epitaph of Mary Seymour then we know at least that there was someone who grieved for her and what could have been….

  5. I’m glad there may be a confirmation of what happened to that poor little girl. I’d always figured that she’d died young, what with the childhood mortality rate being so high back then, but also thought that as a child of a Dowager Queen, her death, funeral or burial would have been recorded somewhere.

    That lack of documentation has led to rumors that she’d survived, but incognito for some reason. Her Wikipedia article says one rumor has her being smuggled out of England in 1550 to be raised in a Protestant household. Hmm, this one doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would they do that in 1550 (when Mary was last mentioned in the records), during the reign of the staunchly Protestant Edward VI? Especially when we know that her guardian, Catherine Willoughby and her husband didn’t flee to Europe to escape the Marian persecutions until 1555.

    It’s just more interesting to think that it was something mysterious rather than believing she simply died. Poor thing. What a sad, short, lonely life she seems to have had.

  6. ETA: What does he mean by calling her an ‘unfit traveller’?

    1. shtove says:

      I guess it’s a reference to original sin. Otherwise, it may refer to some particular disability the child was suffering.

      What a vivid epitaph. Ironic – although the intention may have been to to create a ghostly presence.

      I read the article and wondered about this observation on Parr’s funeral: “Thomas, as was the custom at the time, did not attend the ceremony.” Husbands didn’t attend their wive’s funerals? I find that hard to believe. Did it apply to spouses in general? Solely a royal convention?

      ps. thanks to Claire for an interesting article and link.

      1. Dawn says:

        The spouses of Kings and Queens didn’t attend the funerals in those days, it would be a breach of etiquette to do so Dawn

    2. Claire says:

      I thought that “unfit” may be referring to the fact that she died before her time, not sure.

    3. sara says:

      I think unfit traveller refers to catherine,meaning died before her time ie not ready.

      1. sara says:

        Sorry came to this site just recently and then read claires reply.BCoth Catherine and little Mary were unfit travellers.Claire is probably correct that it refers to Mary but it could equally refer to mother and daughter.

  7. miladyblue says:

    Catherine Willoughby-Brandon, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, was a very good friend of Catherine Parr, as well as fairly wealthy in her own right, why would Mary have been an “unwelcome burden” to her? The only reason she would have pressed ahead in trying to claim Mary’s inheritance would have been so the girl could have security in her own right. The properties, or at least the monies from the sale of her parents’s properties would have guaranteed her some sort of security, as well as a marriage portion befitting a young lady of her station, a cousin of King Edward.

    1. yrene says:

      This explanation makes perfect sense!

      1. Clare jones says:

        The question would be to follow the land, what happened to the lands, she did not take but were her mothers’, a queen. Having her rights registered in lands, would have made her a threat to the crown. So did she ever know who she was? To be able to claim her birth rights.?

    2. Linda says:

      it does make sense that the child’s guardian would fight for her inheritance, so that she would not only have her title, family connections, plus a dowery, making her a desirable match. Also, King Edward would not be looked upon as being mean spirited, or unkind, to a helpless relative.

  8. Nancy says:

    I read somewhere in a book (probably one of the many biographies that I have of Catherine Parr – perhaps the Susan James bio that was part of the 2010 Anne Boleyn Experience goody bag?) that Mary might have been buried at the Church of St. Michael and All Angels at Edenham, several miles from Grimsthorpe, which is the burial place of many of the Willoughbys. When I visited Grimsthorpe Castle in May before the Executed Queens tour I wanted to stop at Edenham to pay my respects (the Call Connect bus that took me to Grimsthorpe stopped right in front of the church, but the bus had to be reserved at least 2 hours in advance and the driver told me that it was too far to walk to the castle from the church, and if I had gotten off there I wouldn’t have been able to get to Grimsthorpe and, besides, since it was a very small parish church there was a good chance that it would be locked and I couldn’t have gotten in anyway).

  9. Sharon says:

    I am having a difficult time believing that the Duchess of Suffolk felt that the infant Mary was a burden to her. Catherine Parr was her best friend. When she appeals to Somerset via Cecil, she was asking for monies and properties that were rightfully Mary’s. She asked that Mary be treated as the daughter of a Queen, and be given the necessary funding to raise her as such. If she sounded a little angry, It may have been because Mary’s family rejected her.

    1. Claire says:

      I think that Mary was a financial burden to the Duchess. She had a household fit for the Dowager Queen’s daughter which consisted of “lady governess, rockers, laundresses and other servants” and no money to pay them. The poor Duchess had to fight for the government to release Thomas Seymour’s remaining assets but it looks like it was too late by the time they did so. I don’t think there is any evidence that Mary was ill-treated or that the Duchess disliked the little girl but she must have been very worried about her financial situation.

      1. Christine says:

        The Duchess’ letter to Cecil was propably considerably earlier than January 1550 because at this point Cecil had been imprisoned in the Tower for 3 months after the toppling of Somerset in Oczober 1549. Cecil was only released on 25 January 1550, so he can hardly have been decisive in granting the mony to little Mary (this was not mentioned in the Porter article, but I was curious because of the odd timing and looked up Cecil’s time in the Tower). Perhaps the Duchess had petitioned the new regime or parliament directly.

        1. Claire says:

          Yes, I would say that it took a while between the Duchess’s letter to Cecil and Parliament allowing Mary to inherit the property in January 1550. The fact that it was never claimed suggests that Mary died shortly after that date otherwise I’m sure that the Duchess would have made sure that the property was claimed and the money used to support Mary and her household.

  10. Shoshana says:

    I cannot recall which book, probably one of Alison Wier’s, but I read there was documentation somewhere that a Mary Seymour married a knight just about at the time this child would have been old enough to marry. Whether the Mary that married was the same Mary is questionable, but I like to think it’s true and that while she certainly married beneath her station, she lived a happy life away from the constant stress of court life. If she did marry a minor knight; she would have sturggled financially but would have been free of the mistrust and competition of court life. Realistically, Mary Seymour probably did not survive to see her third birthday; but stranger things have happened than a young child being sent away, her inheritance and her self forgotten, to grow into a young woman who made the best marriage she could and prehaps never knowing she could lay claim to the remainder of her fathers estate. If she did pass away, I hope she and her mother found one another in the next life and are at peace.

    1. Alexandria says:

      Agnes Strickland reports a tradition that Mary Seymour married Sir Edward Bushell, who was a courtier of Elizabeth I and later of Anne of Denmark, and that they had a daughter who married into the Lawson family of Cumbria and Westmoreland.
      It seems more likely to me that the little girl died, since some trace of the Queen’s daughter would surely remain if she had survived, and Elizabeth had been fond of Katherine Parr, so would surely have taken an interest in her child.

    2. Lucinda says:

      It has always been said in my mother’s side of the family that we are related to Catherine Parr. Obviously there is no evidence, but I would love to know if Mary grew up to be married. There is a tale of some Northern family called Eglionby taking Mary in and she would eventually marry.

  11. Dawn says:

    It was a long time ago, (over 20yrs) maybe in one of the many books I have read, or even in guide book of a property I have have visited associated with Catherine Parr, that little Mary Seymore did die as an infant as she had been a sickly child, and also that she was blind from birth. If there is any truth in this is anyones guess, on day I will go through my guide books/reading books and see if I can find the story, that is when I unpack all the boxes from moving, which could take years!!! ha ha 🙂

  12. Rachel McNeil says:

    What happened to Mary Seymour has always been fascinating to me, and I found it annoying that we never knew what happpened. Now I have something that can help me satiate my intrigue for a while until there is a more permanent shared ideology of her ending by historians etc.

    Thank you truly for this.

    Rachel

  13. Anna says:

    This is so sad! I’m glad people know what happened to her though.

  14. Peony Ofindiana says:

    Does this make sense that Mary only lived 2 years when this epitaph was printed 25 years after her birth?
    I was drawn to study about the protestants in England after watching part of a movie on Netflix called “Lady Jane”
    Thanks for all the entries, this is interesting to study.

  15. I also find it interesting that it was printed 25 years after her “death.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean he wrote it 25 years afte, he could have written it shortly after.. To me it sounds like an epitaph meant for a marking stone, either a gravestone or a marker in a church. Could it be on a marker in a chruchyard somewhere and partially buried? Still though, as a queen’s daughter you would think more care would have been made for her final burying place. All very interesting. I wrote a work of fiction, by the way, on Mary Seymour called “The Stolen One.”

  16. Mary Heneghan says:

    It seems strange that the death of a daughter of a dowager queen was not recorded somewhere. She obviously was treated as such while she lived, with her appropriate household. It would be wonderful if documentation could still be found to give us the answer to this mystery.

    I have just looked up Suzanne’s book “The Stolen One” on Amazon. It sounds intriguing but doesn’t seem to be available on Kindle at the moment. It is nice to imagine an alternative life for Mary. I have read “The Keeper of Secrets” by Sandra Byrd which also covers Mary and what might have happened.

    1. TracyAnna says:

      Mary,
      Having just read Sandra Byrd’s brilliant novel I wholeheartedly agree with you that as the daughter of good Queen Katherine Parr she should have more written info about her life. I am going to read Suzanne’s novel next. I have also read much written by Allison Weir and other historians. Perhaps this wealth of writing and curiosity will somehow prompt some more needed delving into this fascinating subject of what became of Little Mary. She was Katherine’s heart. There can be no doubt about that!

  17. margaret says:

    i think that maybe the little one mary seymour was possibly brought up by a peasent family and this was done for her protection and to basically get her out of the limelight even though she was very young.also there is mention the epitaph was printed 25 years after her supposed death maybe her death happend when she was 25. also what happened to her household all the staff ? is there documentation on this anywhere or was this done back then ?

  18. What a sad story to happen ..being a mother and not know what your child future going holds. Wasn’t the baby name after Mary1, I know her & Catherine had w good relationship. I was thinking if maybe this child was left in care of Mary1. I see a happier ending… I know to some it may sound crazy..but I really think Mary would of done better..other please have ur opinions open to hear them.. Thank you, QueenFletch82

  19. Stella says:

    I may have another theory for the disappearance of Mary Seymour.. the ring that was mentioned in Wikipedia – has anyone found it yet? Apparently someone passed it down the generations up till 1927!

    I have been told on Ancestry by someone that a Catherine Seymour born the same year as Mary was actually the daughter of Catherine Parr.. and she married and had a child, that I’m a descendent of. The research goes on…

    1. Alexandria says:

      I wouldn’t put too much trust in stuff you find on Ancestry family trees unless there is good documentation to back it up. I have a number of family trees on the site and am strict about what I accept, but on other trees I have found people who apparently gave birth to themselves, mothers who died 100 years before their apparent child was born, four children born to the same mother in the same year (not quads!) couples who marry although there are more than 100 years difference in their ages. The more trivial errors, wrong portraits, ignoring all documentary evidence or confusing two people with the same or similar names, are legion. At first I used to try drawing people’s attention to these errors in comments, but the rude responses I got for my pains have made me give up except when I think something is seriously misleading to other family historians.

      1. Christine says:

        Iv found that also with Ancestry there has to be proof you can easily be led astray by other peoples trees, I noticed on one tree Lady Jane Grey had a child who went on to marry, but she never was pregnant and I think a lot of people add famous ancestors to their trees because they want some one famous, it does make your tree more interesting, but just because your name is Howard or Boleyn or Percy etc doesn’t mean your actually related to those characters.

  20. Jean Francis says:

    Hi this peace of work is very helpfull for my history project as i am absest with the tudors .

    1. Marie Gilman says:

      Well Jean I do recommend you re-learn your English spelling before you submit your history project (of course, unless your tutor cares very little about it).
      (piece of work, helpful, obsessed)
      with respect of course, but you need to correct your English

      1. Claire says:

        Marie,
        I know you’re trying to be helpful and to ensure that Jean gets a good mark, but we have many international users, who don’t have English as their first language, and also children who use the site for homework. I’m just glad that people are researching sites like mine to dig deeper and that, to me, is more important than their grammar and spelling. I want everyone to feel welcome on here. Jean’s comment was back in 2013 so she’s probably done her project.
        Thanks!

  21. Alexandria says:

    Appropos of Mary Seymour, I noticed that some family trees on Ancestry had a picture of Mary! I was puzzled by this, as the child in the picture is older than Mary was if she died in 1550 as is supposed. Portraits of toddlers are very rare except of babies with their mothers, and occasionally of royal heirs. Also the clothes were wrong for the period, the child wears a large cross on the centre of the bodice, which seemed unlikely for Mary, and the painting style and clothes do not look English. Of course there were stories of Mary having been taken abroad, but…..
    I emailled the original poster of the picture to Ancestry, asking about its origins but got no response, so, acting on a hunch that the painting most resembled portraits I had seen of the Spanish royal family of later in the sixteenth century, I looked for pictures of them, and I found it! The chld in the picture is not Mary Seymour, and how it ever came to be thought it was is a mystery I have not resolved. The child is the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, daughter of Philip II of Spain and his wife Elizabeth de Valois. Isabella was later to be ruler of the Netherlands, and there are many portraits of her in later life, where a facial resemblance to this one can be seen. The painting is by the artist Alfonso Sanchez Coello. It dates from about 1572 and is curently in the Baltimore Museum of Arts.

    1. Madeline says:

      What wonderful sleuthing you did, Sherlockia. Congratulations on a job well done!

      1. Judy Anstess says:

        I agree..Midieval history is very hard to figure our. Good job..

  22. carrie says:

    Where is the evidence that Catherine didn’t want her or treated her unkindly? She was a mother herself I like to think that although it was hard for her economically she may have felt sorry for her? Poor thing though. Maybe she had some kidness before her early death

  23. John says:

    Claire,
    I have been researching my family history for 30 years. I have a document which I received from Virginia State Library and Archives which claims to be “A true Register of all the Children’s names, the day of their birth, the year, and the names of their Godfathers and Godmothers supplied by Dorcas Sidney (Wife of Alexander Cosby, Stradbally Hall, Ireland) The document states Alexander is the son of Gen Francis Cosby and Hon Lady Mary Seymour.(incorrectly identified as the daughter of Edward Duke of Somerset) I believe this Mary Seymour is actually the missing daughter of his brother Thomas Seymour. If this is true then little Mary did not die young but if fact did end up in Ireland and had 14 grandchildren of which I would be her 11 great grandson.
    ( A much happier ending to the story) especially for me.
    I have found some of those listed in the document ( Francis Agard, Lord Deputy William Fitzwilliams and the birthplace of Mable Cosby Lupen Hall (Wulfhall?) John Cosby whose Godmother is listed as Lady Mary Seymour.
    I would be happy to send this document along to you for your comments.

  24. Lisa Love says:

    My boss told me she is a direct decentent of Catherine Parr this would mean that Mary Seymor did survive passed the age of two

    1. Judy Anstess says:

      I would love to read her tree. Catherine Parr and I share the same grandmother..Elizabeth FitzHugh..Elizabeth was Thomas Parr’s mother, and Thomas was Catherine’s father..

  25. Randleson Floyd-Daniels says:

    Too many documents have been lost to history to state that no claim was made on Thomas Seymour’s estate. If there is some sort of document that shows Thomas Seymour’s estate languishing and unclaimed, please someone source it. Does John Parkhurst’s book of epitaphs appear in chronological order? Is that why it is supposed that Mary lived to around 2 years? Otherwise it seems to indicate that she died prior to publication in 1573. I agree that the epitaph could have been written several years before publication, but from where does the age 2 originate? Also, while Mary Seymour seems a very logical subject for Parkhurst, it really could be someone else. I doubt Mary lived to adulthood, it just seems we would know a little something of her, but this proof just doesn’t add up to age 2 for me.

  26. Anna Burman says:

    Is there any more new news about the child come to light yet please?

    1. Claire says:

      No, I haven’t heard anything more.

  27. Wendy says:

    Life can be so cruel Katherine died and never got to enjoy her daughter and her marriage to the man she really loved. Just like Jane Seymour.
    Elizabeth like mary didn’t have her mither to guide her and nurture her. So sad. Fantastic article shame no one can find the little ones grave perhaps it was unmarked. Or is she buried with her mother. Hope they find her resting place one day .

  28. Clare says:

    It’s all so fascinating, I love this kind of investigation. However I am drawn to the thought that she did die very young as a lot of children did at that time. I just hope that she was buried with her mother which would account for the lack of information available but quite a reasonable assumption.

  29. Judy Anstess says:

    I find it hard to believe that Katherine Willoughby, being very close to Catherine Parr, would be so HEARTLESS to the child of the former Queen and true friend, would not have made mention of Lady Mary Seymour life/death. Catherine and I both share the same Grandmother. Catherine’s father was Sir Thomas Parr, and he was the son of Lady Elizabeth FitzHugh. Elizabeth FitzHugh, my 14th great grandmother, (came from a rich and Noble family..House of Neville) Elizabeth’s daughter was Anne Vaux. Anne’s husband was Sir Thomas LeStrange, and was esquire to the body of Henry, as well as being one of Henry Tudor’s closest friends. Anne Vaux and Sir Thomas both were close to King Henry. They had a huge estate in Huntstanton, Norfolk, England and were the parents of 16 children. My 13th greatmother (Anne), grew up with Catherine Parr. Catherine was Anne’s niece. For that reason, I find it hard to believe that Katherine Willoughby did not know that fact. Since Anne Vaux and Thomas were extremely close to, and certainly had the money to take in Catherine’s only daughter. After all, they were family. This is just a guess, but I find it very possible that perhaps they took Lady Mary Seymour back to Huntstanton, Norfolk, to be raised with their children. Certainly they did not have the NEED to claim Lady Mary’s inheritance. Huntstanton was a long distance away, and maybe they chose not to tell Mary about who her parents were, and simply raised little Lady Mary as their own, and giving her the kind of live she deserved. Like I said, I just think it is a possibility..I am going back to England in October and staying for a month. While visiting the town of Huntstanton, maybe I can find more information on the subject.

  30. Judy Anstess says:

    Well now, I read somewhere in the last few days, that there was a baby left outside the gate of Sir Thomas LeStrange and his wife, in Huntstanton, Norfollk..I cannot find it right now, but will go through my many notes and look it up again. It was, I believe, in the year 1549..By that time, Sir Thomas had already passed away. (Sir Thomas LeStrange died 1545) Thomas had been sick with kidney stones (I believe) for about 5 years and finally died in 1545, being of age of 51. I just found where I read that there was a baby left outside the gates of their property.
    This could have very well been Lady Mary Tudor. Like I mentioned before, Catherine Parr was the grand daughter of Elizabeth FitzHugh, and Anne Vaux/LeStrange was Elizabeth’s daughter, making Anne Vaux, Catherine’s aunt. Perhaps they felt that Lady Mary Seymour might be in danger, and that is why she would have been left outside the gates of Anne Vaux and Sir Thomas’ estate..For safty of Lady Mary Seymour and that she was family..Just a huncg, but it seems to fit.

  31. Judy Anstess says:

    Sorry, I meant to include where I found the information about a baby being left outside the gate of the LeStrange Estate…It was on THE TUDOR PLACE website..

  32. Victoria Evrard says:

    Perhaps “unfit traveller” meant that the baby had no real home (she was born at Sudeley Castle, but after her father was executed, an Act of Parliament disinherited her – she “traveled” to Grimsthorpe Castle, to the Duchess of Suffolk). Because of the disinheritance, she had no money for the upkeep due to a child of a former Queen of England, thus she may have been called “unfit” for this reason.

    Thank you for this lovely web site!

  33. How very sad. I sure did not know that. I, of course knew about Katherine & Thomas, but wondered off & on at what had happened to the daughter. I kind of thought she just grew up & lived in obscurity. Sounds like her life….no matter how short or how long, was dreadfully sad. Poor child.

  34. Hayley Amanda says:

    I have often wondered if Mary Parr was smuggled out of the country when Mary Tudor -( a staunch Roman Catholic who together with her husband Philip of Spain introduced the Inquistion to England)-ascended the throne? Mary Parr would almost certainly have been placed with a reformist family after the death of her parents -who were themselves ardent reformers and although for a while this was a safe situation under Protestant Edward VI, when Mary Tudor inherited the throne Mary Parr’s religion would have put her under a very unwelcome and dangerous spotlight indeed. Is it too much of a stretch to assume that ‘if’ she survived plague and the Sweat that she may have fled to a protestant country -like Holland? Maybe her friends deliberately encouraged the rumour that she had died or maybe they even faked her death to give her the best possible chance of escape?

  35. wendy mortimer says:

    i think they petitioned Edward for money to raise mary. depending on how much it was? if it was quite a lot and they were in debt ,what better way to make mary disappear either by dying or sending her elsewhere. I think there was a cover up. they kept the money and got rid of mary….which is a shame as she had a really bad upbringing after her parents died .anyone looked in the local church records. and don’t forget there was a small chapel that is no longer there ,maybe she was buried in there. need time team here…..(archaeology dig)……

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.