Hi Frances,

Many thanks - I hadn't thought to look at 1821, but that is great, but WE have a splendid five star problem so far as I can see.

Rita Browne and J A Brew both say that Thomas Radcliffe was last abbot of Rushen, BUT there is apparently evidence that HENRY JACKSON received a pension as last abbot of Rushen (What is the evidence by the way ?). However, the 1532 Indenture states

"by Force of which Comission, upon Summons and Warning given by the said Comissioners to the said Partys, the foresaid Bishopp, and Thomas, Abbot of Rushen, with diverse others the Clergie of the same Isle, and all other Persons above named, of the other Party, and a great Multitude of the same Isle, appeared in their proper Persons before the said Comissioners "

Later on the signatories are given, "In Witness whereof the said Parties to this present Indenture of Aggreement, have interchangeably putt their Hands and Seales. And in Proof the Abbott and divers others of Clergy, whose Names be hereafter subscribed, and also the said Commissioners were present, and hereto agreeable, every one of them hath written with their proper Handes their Names down, and dated at the Castle of Rushen, in Mann, the Day and Yeare above-written:—
Thomas Abbott, Sir Thos. Norries, Sir John Corkell, Sir James Clarke, and Williarn Inch Commissioners, Thos. Sherburne, Thurstan Tyldesley, Morgan Johns, John Fleminge, Tho. Tyldesley, Piers Anderson, & John Gardener.
"
The church follows the custom that a bishop etc uses his first name, so the bishop is "the Right Reverend Father in God John Bsihopp Sddorensis", and the Abbot is "Thomas Abbot"

There is a further line "Thomas, Abbot of Rushen". so in 1532, Henry Jackson was clearly NOT Abbot of Rushen, as the entry would have read, "Henry, Abbot"

Of course this does not conform that Thomas Abbot of Rushen was Thomas RADCLIFFE, as it could be any Thomas, but it seems a distinct possibility. If so, it looks as if Rita Browne and J A Brew were right about Thomas being Abbot of Rushen, despite what has been said to the contrary.

This does not confirm that it was Thomas Radcliffe, or even if it weas that he is the guy who later held Knockaloe Moar, or what family he came from, but it is one small step for Mann.

So thoughts please, and where do we go from here ?