Medieval Pedigree Comparison

A side-by-side comparison of the two routes through the medieval Exley pedigree, from William de Dewsbury (c.1245) down to John Exley (m. Eliz. Tonge, 1555). Victor’s route descends through William (son of Wm de Dewsbury); the NZ pedigree descends through Richard (the second son). Both routes are documented in Pedigree Connections.

Side-by-Side Descent

Gen.Victor’s Route (via William)Approx. DateNZ Route (via Richard)Approx. DateNotes
1William de Dewsbury (c.1245)c.1245William de Ecclesley of Dewsburyc.1245Both agree. Undated deeds before 1277.
2William (m. Alice, dau. of Wm de Backhall)c.1270Richard de Ecclesley (liv. 1277)liv. 1277Divergence begins. Victor follows William; NZ follows Richard, the second son.
3John (m. Ann de Copley)c.1320William de Ecclesley (liv. 1284)liv. 1284
4John (Poll Tax 1379)1379Richard de Ecclesley (killed 1317)d. 1317Victor: “Paid 6d in Poll Tax 1379. The only Exley recorded in Morley Wapentake.”
5John (witness to 1404 deed)1404(name missing)?NZ pedigree has a gap here; no name survives.
6John (witness to 1417 deed)c.1420Robert of Exley Hall (liv. 1424)liv. 1424
7Robertc.1450Robert of Bankhouse (liv. 1456)liv. 1456Victor: Wolsey petition confirms Robert (c.1450) as start of 4 verified generations.
8Johnc.1470James of Wortley (liv. 1481)liv. 1481Victor disputes James as Robert’s son; says he was Robert’s cousin.
9Richardc.1500Thomas Exley (liv. 1501)liv. 1501
10Robertc.1518James Exley (liv. 1516)liv. 1516
11Francis Exley (c.1539)c.1539Thomas Exley (d. 1553) m. Pelagia (d. 1539)d. 1553Different father for John. Victor: Francis. NZ: Thomas.
12John Exley (m. Eliz. Tonge, 1555)m. 1555John de S. (d. 1566) m. Elizabeth Tonged. 1566Both agree. John’s will names Robert and Francis as his sons.

Where They Agree

  • Both routes begin with William de Dewsbury (c.1245), the earliest known Exley ancestor at Exley Hall, Southowram.
  • Both routes end at John Exley (m. Eliz. Tonge, 1555), whose will is the key connecting document linking the medieval pedigree to the Rawdon and Liversedge branches.
  • Both confirm that all Exley branches descend from a single family at Exley Hall.
  • The Wolsey petition (c.1519), cited by Victor, confirms four consecutive generations on his route: Robert (c.1450), John (c.1470), Richard (c.1500), and Robert (c.1518), establishing that Robert (1518) was the great-grandson of Robert (1450). See Victor Exley Pedigree Sketch.

Where They Diverge

Choice of main line. At generation 2, the routes split. Victor follows William (m. Alice), the eldest son of Wm de Dewsbury. The NZ pedigree, compiled by Edith Ellen Exley, follows Richard, the second son. Victor explains in his Oct 1990 letter: “I have taken Richard son of Wm de Dewsbury & his descendants as the main line, while I took the other son William (m. Alice) for my main line.”

Intermediate ancestors. The two routes pass through entirely different named individuals between generations 2 and 11. Victor’s route has a run of four Johns (c.1320 to c.1420); the NZ route passes through Roberts, Richards, Jameses, and Thomases via the Bankhouse and Wortley lines.

Paternity of John (m. Eliz. Tonge). Victor names Francis Exley (c.1539) as John’s father, based on a 1539 marriage entry in the Halifax Parish Register. The NZ pedigree names Thomas Exley (d. 1553), last Exley owner of Bankhouse, Skircourt, married to Pelagia (d. 1539). The NZ pedigree qualifies this with “Thomas and Pelagia were probably the parents of the following.”

Pre-Dewsbury ancestry. The NZ pedigree includes an earlier lineage not present in Victor’s work: Swaina de Ecclesley > Hugh de Ecclesley (liv. 1250) > Henry of Ecclesley Hall (m. Joan de Monte Alto), whose children Ellen and Robert left property to descendants of William de Dewsbury. Victor’s research begins at William de Dewsbury without tracing further back.

Victor’s own assessment. In his July 1990 letter, Victor wrote: “As a few of the links are a bit dicey either pedigree could be right. A combination of both may even be more correct.”

Evidence Quality

General limitations. Victor notes in his Oct 1990 letter that “in the absence of church registers at that early period the only source of relationships is what we can deduce from deeds & wills, which were not always clear. Some deeds were not even dated.” Parish registers in England generally begin in 1538; the medieval portion of both pedigrees relies entirely on pre-register sources.

Victor’s route. The strongest section is generations 7-10 (Robert c.1450 to Robert c.1518), confirmed by the Wolsey petition as four generations of the same line. The earlier generations (Johns of c.1320-1420) are supported by individual deeds and the 1379 Poll Tax, but the father-son links between them rest on inference rather than explicit documentary proof. Victor’s connection of the Halifax Antiquarian Society’s research to his own line is noted at generation 2.

NZ route. Victor observes that from Richard (liv. 1277) down to James (liv. 1516), “there are no birth dates, no death dates & no wives’ names.” The NZ pedigree also has a gap at generation 5, where the name of the individual between Richard (killed 1317) and Robert of Exley Hall (liv. 1424) is missing. The connection of Thomas and Pelagia to their supposed children is explicitly qualified as “probably” by the NZ compilers.

Specific errors noted by Victor. In his July 1990 letter, Victor states that James of Wortley (liv. 1481) “wasn’t” Robert of Bankhouse’s son but rather “Robert’s cousin.” He also corrects the location of Bankhouse: “Skirsote not Bailey Hall.”

Key Sources