Facts and Events
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Greene, David L. “Townsend Ancestry of Richard of the Welcome, John of Philadelphia, Joseph of Chester County, and Joan of Chester County”, in Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania), 42 (4): 293-313, Fall/Winter 2002.
(See RichardC Townsend from pages 297–8.)
Greene writes, “It is tempting—and quite possibly true—to suggest that Anne Arnold became RichardC Townsend's wife (the names Anne and Agnes were then interchangeable). Note, however, that the reversion of Heywards was granted to Richard Townsend ‘and such wife as he should marry,’ not necessarily Anne Arnold. Nevertheless, it seems a reasonable speculation that Anne Arnold and Agnes (—?—) Townsend are identical and that Stephen Arnold(s) was RichardC Townsend's father-in-law. These are the only four Arnold mentions found in the manorial court rolls, the Bucklebury register, or the Quaker records.”
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Humphreys, Arthur Lee. Bucklebury : a Berkshire parish, the home of Bolingbroke 1701-1715. (Reading England: The author, 1932), p 474.
Extracted from the manor rolls:
“Manor of Burghulburie” Court Baron, dated “17 October 19 James I ”
“Also the death of Agnes Townsend, widow, who held for her life, by copy dated 10 March 4 Eliz.  a messuage called Heywards in West End. Heriot, a cow worth 33s. 4d. Richard Townesend [son of Agnes] ought to enjoy the premises for term of his life, by virtue of the said copy. He does fealty, & is admitted tenant.”
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Greene cites Humphreys, Arthur L. Bucklebury: A Berkshire Parish[,] the Home of Bolingbrook 1701-1715. (Reading, Berkshire, 1932), 470, 474. “Humphreys includes, in English translation, the records of the ‘Manor of Burghulburie.’ Even though Humphreys was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and should have known better, he was confused about dating. He silently transferred the months from numbers to names using modern numbering [i.e., January as month 1] so that, for example, he misdated 10 1st month as 10 January. This may affect the dating of the manorial rolls, which unfortunately do not appear to be available elsewhere.”