Hi,

I have been trying to arrive at an answer to this one, and the water is somewhat muddied by what seems to be wishful thinking on the basis, "records were poor, there is no evidence that X existed, but that does not prove he did not exist". This is perfectly OK, but the argument then goes on, "SO HE MUST HAVE EXISTED".

Now clearly, there are many cases where we KNOW people did exist, so an argument that we do not know their pedigree so they did not exist is nonsense, but the devotees of the "HE MUST HAVE EXISTED" argument then assign parents on the basis that a particular couple were available, so MUST be the parents. They might be, but they might not be.

According to one popular line, the Radcliffes of Knockaloe are related to the Earl of Sussex, and the most extreme version of this theory claims that the Earl lived and was buried in the IOM. However, he was a leading British Peer involved in affairs of State in Westminster, and there is ample evidence to support this. There is also evidence that the Earl died and was buried in England. It would be pleasant to add the Earl of Sussex or his Fizrwalter ancestors to one's tree, but I strongly doubt it as the Earl seems to be far too clearly placed in England to fit

As regards Richard Glanville Brown's peerage site, there is a vast amount of good material there, but I suspect that there is a lot of make believe as well, and how well material is checked is a moot point. I have found quite a few errors when using the site, and I think a lot is reader supplied data with little checking.

This is also a problem with the IGI. The data from the Parish records that the LDS extracted is substantially correct, allowing for occasional transcirption errors. but there is a lot of member submitted data as well, and it can be hard to work out which is good material and which is nonsense. Both sources must be used with care.

One problem is that A says something, and may qualify is as "possible". B finds it and calls it likely; C finds that reference and says "This happened", Later on a reseacher finds A, B and C's accounts, so has three "independent" sources backing the same story, so it is proven beyond doubt.

It is my opinion that there is a connection to one of the Radcliffe families, either of Lancashire, Cumbria or the FitzWalter family, and my own GUESS is the northern families are much more likely.

My reason for this is what I would call an educated guess. The Earls of Derby anted families they knew to run their Manx kingdom for them, so they employed younger sons of families local to their neck of the woods, i.e. Lancs, so we had the Tyldesleys, Prestons, and so on. There were at least two Radcliffe families in the north, wo were of lesser status than the Derbys or the Fitzwalter family. I would be surprised if the Derbys had gone "out of character" and also out of area for a Fitzwalter Radcliffe. The FitzWaters strike me as being too upmarket to accept a relatively minor post under the Derbys and the iOM was, by Fitzwalter standards a backwater.

Whilst I am doubtful as to a Fitzwalter link, I find the Abbot Thomas argument plausible though not proven. In this I do differ from some researchers who are as opposed to Abbot Thomas as to the Earls of Sussex. I have been categorically told that Abbot Thomas did not exist, or that he must have been associated with the Bemaccan Friary, but discussion with the Catholic church authorities has revealed that the Bemaccan Friary would NOT have had an ABBOT, so is a red herring.

I am personally happy with the existence of Abbot Thomas of Rushen, and I am quite prepared to accept that "he left quietly" with a reasonable pension and prospered.

To me, there are two serious problems.

A) Tracing firward from Abbot Thomas to the Radcliffes of Knockaloe in the 1600s.

B) Tying in the ABbot to a specific Radcliffe family, and the Earls of Sussex are at present my least favoured option.

There is a thread of opinion that links the Radcliffe of Knockaloe family with a Stanley official at Peel which you should be aware of. I think this is also covered in the thread.

RObert Hendry

Argument has bounced back and forward re