Posted by Chris Morley, 14 February 2013.

Anthony Morley is examined in a 1863 article from volume 9 of Archaeologia cambrensis, entitled Sussex Ironmasters in Glamorganshire. See in particular pp. 94-120.

The author of this article writes, on page 100

"As I have already stated, the parties concerned in those Glamorganshire works were chiefly Sussex ironmasters[...] Anthony Morley was unquestionably a member of the wealthy and distinguished family of that name is Sussex; and I strongly suspect that he must have been identical with the 'Anthony Morley,' whose name frequently appears in some of the genealogical accounts of Sussex families, as living at the same period when Anthony Morley was the lessee and proprietor of the works in Glamorganshire."

The author's use of the word "unquestionably" is curious, because in the next sentence some discrepancies between the Sussex Anthony Morley and the Glamorganshire Anthony Morley are noted: the recorded names of his wife and children.

"The different accounts do not, however, quite accord: for in Berry's Sussex Genealogies, he is represented to have been married to Joane, daughter of --- Fenne, and the widow of Edward Shirley, while in the Visitation of Sussex, contained in the Harleian Collection, the name of his wife is not given, and he is simply described as having 'died without issue'.

These discrepancies are actually not as big as the author makes them out to be, for the two sources mentioned above -- Berry's County Genealogies of Sussex and Harleian visitation of Sussex manuscripts -- actually both record two Anthony Morleys. The elder Anthony is stated in both instances to have married Joane Fenn, widow of Edw. Shirley. (The wording on both sources is identical, punctuation aside.) This Anthony's nephew of the same name is named on the visitation manuscript, but no further information is given. Berry says that this Anthony died "S.P." (sine prole). My source for the Sussex Visitations is a self-described "literal transcript" of Harleian MSS 1562, containing, amongst other things, the 1530 "(as some thinke) Sussex Visitation "continued and enlarged with" the 1633/4 Visitation of Sussex. This source was not published until 1905, so it was unavailable to the author of the Archaeologia cambrensis contributor. Perhaps the author found a different manuscript with conflicting information regarding these two Anthonys.

The author goes on to mention that the Anthony Morley in Glamorgan had children Herbert, William, Margaret and Anne, and that his widow Bridget looks to have remarried to John Watyns. Evidence is given in the article's appendix. Elsewhere in the article it is stated that Bridget's brother was a Mitchell -- called 'Edward' of Weston, Herefs. in the main matter (page 105) and at the start of the appendix, but called 'Edmond' later on in the appendix (page 109).

On page 101 the author presents a theory to account for these discrepancies:

"I am unable to prove indisputably that the 'Anthony Morley' of Sussex, and he of Glamorganshire, we identical; but the supposition that they were so, is not without probability: my impression is that he was twice married, and that after the assumed death of his first wife, he proceeded into Glamorganshire, and, marrying and dying there, his subsequent marriage, and the particulars of his children, did not appear in any of the subsequent Visitations of Sussex."

I think this theory is plausible, but it remains unconfirmed.

As discussed under my notes for the Morleys of Glynde, the early part of the Archaeologia cambrensis pedigree given for this family is questionable. Or, more precisely, the placement of Nicholas Morley (husband of Joane Walleys) as the child of Francis Morley and Margaret Bekonsall (Beaconsall/Beaconsaw) is chronologically impossible.