Fay Sampson’s Family History
This site is a work-in-progress. There is a massive amount to cover. I have included both male and female lines, and some go back 30 generations. Keep coming back for more.
I have numbered the generations working backwards from my own as (1)
RICHARD MACKNEY and CONSTANCE HOLLOWAY (11)
RICHARD MACKNEY. From the date of his marriage we should expect Richard to have been born around 1590. He had his first children baptised in Sutton by Dover, between Dover and Deal, so he may have been born there, or somewhere nearby. No plausible baptism has been found for him anywhere in Kent. It was probably in a parish whose registers do not go back that far.
He married in Northbourne, just west of Deal, in 1613. In 1572 there is a marriage in Northbourne between Stephen Mackney and Elizabeth Mayner or Manner. No baptisms have been found for this couple, which fits with the absence of a baptism for Richard. There are not many Mackneys in the area around Deal, so there is a strong likelihood that these are his parents
We do not know his father’s occupation for certain, but Richard became a farmer, so he probably came of farming stock. At least two of his sons became yeomen, one with a substantial farm, making it very likely that Richard was a yeoman too.
Typically, early baptism registers only give us the father’s name. But when their child William was buried, he was said to be the son of Richard Mackeny and Constance his wife.
This leads us to the marriage between Richard Mackney and Constance Holloway in 1613.
CONSTANCE HOLLOWAY. The date of Constance’s marriage fits with the following baptism. Northbourne, where she was living when she married, is 3 m from Deal.
Baptism. St Leonard, Deal.
1590 Dec 6 Constance daughter of John Holoway.
She was born in the closing year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
We have found no full siblings.
No first marriage has been found for her father, so we do not know her mother’s name for certain. She is probably the Joan Holloway who was buried in Deal in 1692
Her father was a yeoman farmer, so Constance’s upbringing on a farm would have suited her to become a farmer’s wife, in charge of the dairy and the poultry, as well as feeding the farm hands.
In 1610, when Constance was 20, her widowed father married Mary Master. The following year a half-brother was born, but died soon after birth. We have found no further children.
Marriage. Northbourne.
1613 Jul 1 Richard Mackney and Constance Holloway.
Their first two children were baptised in Sutton by Dover.
Baptisms. Sutton by Dover.
1614 Oct 16 Sara
1616 Aug 11 Jane
They then moved to the village of Ripple, a mile inland from Walmer, just south of Deal.
Baptisms. Ripple.
1617 Jan 4 Thomas
1619 Oct 31 John
1621 Mar 3 Francis
On 23 Apr 1622 3-year-old Jane was buried.
1623 Feb 29 Elizabeth
1626 Apr 16 Richard
1628 Oct 12 Sidrach
1630 Sep 12 Henry
1631 Mar 18 Joshua. Bur 1633 May 4
1634 Jul 27 William . Bur 1636 Aug 5.
In almost all of these, Richard is said to be “of Rodmersham”. This is hard to explain. Rodmersham is a village 24 m from Ripple, near Sittingbourne in north Kent. Even if Richard had come from there, Ripple would soon have become his parish of settlement. Yet this phrase is repeated for at least two more generations. We have not found a reference to a hamlet or estate of that name in the parish of Ripple.
These references to Rodmersham only appear in an index of Kent baptisms, and not in the scan of the parish register. They are probably not reliable.
In 1621, a Poor House was built in Ripple on waste land belonging to the lord of the manor south of the King’s highway. Among those who received payment was Richard Mackney “for carriage of the house straw and clay iis”.
As a farmer, Richard would have been one of the few people in this small village with a cart suitable for this purpose.
In 1642 all men over the age of 18 were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Protestant religion. Three men named Mackney took the oath in Ripple: Richard, Thomas and Francis. Richard also signed the return as the churchwarden, along with the minister and the Overseer of the Poor.
Thomas and Francis were two of his older sons. The second son would also have been old enough to sign, but may have done so in another parish.
The absence of any other Mackneys in Ripple is further proof that Richard had come there from elsewhere.
At first sight, it appears that Richard signed his name as churchwarden, but closer inspection reveals that none of those who swore are said to have made their mark. This return appears to be a copy of the list of all those who swore, regardless of whether they were able to write their names. From two documents that follow close after, it appears that Richard would have made his mark.
All the same, he must have been of some standing in the community to be chosen as churchwarden.
Those who refused to sign the Protestation Return were usually Catholics.. No one in Ripple refused
Later that year, the Civil War broke out between Charles I and Parliament. Kent escaped more lightly than some other counties. It was largely Parliamentarian, but Royalist rebels briefly occupied the castles of Sandown, Deal and Walmer, very close to Ripple. The revolt was put down by Lord Fairfax and the New Model Army.
On 23 Jul 1643, the adult males of Ripple swore another oath to be true to the Protestant Religion and to support Parliament against the King. [2]
It included the clause: “And whereas I doe in my conscience believe that the forces raysed by ye two houses of parliament are raysed and continued for theire just defence, and for ye defence of ye true protestant Relligion and libertyes of the subject against ye forces raysed by the king, I doe here in the presence of almighty God Declare, Vow and covenant that I will, according to my power and vocation, assist the forces raysed and continued by both houses of parliament against the forces raysed by ye king without their consent.”
Among the signatories were the mark of Richard Mackney and the mark of Thomas Mackney. Thomas was Richard’s eldest son.
On 28 Feb 1643/4, a much more detailed oath was taken, again professing loyalty to the Protestant religion, but this time coupling it with loyalty to the king. One clause reads:
“We shall with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy in the several vocations endeavour with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments and the liberties of the kingdom, and to preserve and defend the king’s maiesties person and authority in the presentation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may beare witnesse with our consciences of our loyalties, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his majestie’s just power and greatnesse.”
This is followed by a confession of the signatories’ sins that have contributed to the present sorry state of affairs.
Signatories included, the marke of Richard Mackney, the marke of Sidrach Mackney, the mark of Thomas Makny.
This gives the impression that Ripple had been taken over by a Royalist faction, or that pressure had been brought to bear by the lord of the manor. We have no way of knowing which of these two oaths represented the Mackneys true sympathies, or the methods of compulsion that induced them to sign contradictory oaths.
In 1651, Richard Mackney was a defendant in a case brought by William Stanley, clerk (clergyman).[3] The other defendants were Matthew Hammon, Mary Hammond his wife and Henry Chandler. The case concerned tithes, etc in Ripple.
Everyone had to pay a tenth of their income to the rector or vicar. These were the great tithes on grain and the small tithes on other things. The former had to be paid in kind, while the latter might be commuted to a sum of money.
Farmers particularly resented the great tithes. These made no allowance for bad harvests, when they were hard put to feed their families, let alone pay a substantial amount to the clergyman. Nor did they allow for grain set aside for seed corn, for which the farmer received no money.
On the other hand, tithe-gatherers had a hard task. It was difficult to know the exact amount and quality of each farmer’s harvest. The farmer might try to pay the tithe with the worst of his grain,
In this case, Richard appears to have tried to conceal this: “A cunning husbandman like Richard Makeney of Ripple in Kent, would conceal the poor quality of his tithe by leaving it in a field where it would be trampled on and eaten by cattle.”[4]
We have not found a burial for either the Richard or Constance. Richard does not appear in the list of householders in the 1664, but he might by then have been living with one of his children.
There is a burial in Ripple for Richard Mackney in 1679, but an examination of his will shows this to be Richard and Constance’s son. Richard junior was a yeoman, though with a smaller farm than his brother Sidrach, who had 93 acres when he died.
[1] Parish Mouse. Ripple.
[2] Archaelogica CAntiani, Transactions Kent Archaeological Society, Vo. XXVII 1905 “A List of the Rectors of Ripple”, L Beardmore.
[3] National Archives. C 9/7/180
[4] Gillian Ignjatijevic, “The Parish Clergy in the Diocese of Canterbury and Archdeaconry of Bedford in the Reign of Charles I and under the Commonwealth”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield, 1986.
NEXT GENERATION: 10. MACKNEY
PREVIOUS GENERATIONS: