Make your own free website on Tripod.com
ORIGIN OF THE NAME "PEARSALL"

Vol. I, pg. 13

The family of Pearsall did not exist until the twelfth century when Robert Fitz Gilbert de Corbeil, having acquired the manor of Peshale, vested the same in his son Robert who began to call himself de Peshale after the name of this manor. This Robert de Peshale married Ormunda de Lumley de Stafford, a princess of the royal line of Bernician- Northumbrian kings. From them descended all who now or at any time have called themselves Pearsall, and incidentally it may be well to say that there are also several other surnames which are out- growths of the name of this manor of Peshale, and the ancestry of the several individuals using the same, is, in this history, traced to this same Robert de Peshale and his wife Ormunda de Stafford. Careful investigation has shown that the first to call himself Pearsall was Edmond Pearsall, merchant of the staple of London who lived in England 1531-1629 and he induced other members of the family not more closely related to him than distant cousins, to adopt the same surname.

pg. 23

The name Peshale, as a family name, had its beginning in Robert the son of Robert Fitz Gilbert de Corbeil as he was the first to call himself de Peshale. He was also de Lumley. It was not until the second generation after, that the de Lumley was dropped as Robert de Peshale de Lumley had a son John who had the same surnames. Peshale always was a divided manor; there was a part of it held of the Bishops of Chester and John de Peshale de Lumley also acquired Swinnerton by marriage with the daughter and heir of Fitz Alan. It happened that John de Peshale had several sons. To his son Robert he gave Swinnerton when he married the heiress of Suggenhulle and Bishops Offley, so that Robert became de Suggenhulle de Swinnerton, names which of course remained with his children, and they became the ancestors of the Swinnertons and Sugnals.

The Peshale manors were divided by John as follows: to his son William he gave half of the manor held of Robert de Toesni de Stafford; to his son Roger he gave the other half; to his son John he gave the Bishops manor of Peshale. In later generations part of the Bishops Manor came to john Swinnerton, grandson of Robert de Swinnerton de Suggenhulle, by purchase from Dorothy Peshale, great-grand-daughter of John de Peshale, and her husband William de Fisher, de Suggenhulle, de Peshale. Roger's descendants appear to have gone away from Staffordshire, but they continued to call themselves de Peshale, although they sold their interest in the Stafford manor of Peshale to William or his descendants.

The part of the manor of Peshale to William was divided between his sons Stephen and Walter. Stephen's share was conveyed by his son Robert to the same John de Swinnerton who had married his, Robert's sister and heir, Eleanor de Peshale. A part of the other half descended to Adam de Peshale, grandson of Walter, who married Alice, daughter of this same John de Swinnerton and his wife Eleanor de Peshale. She brought as her marriage prtion, her father's holdings in the Peshale manors, and therby part of the Bishops manor and a large share of the manor of Peshale came to be vested in the heirs of this Adam de Peshale. It is from this Adam de Peshale that we descend. He is descended, as we have seen, from Robert de Peshale who married Ormunda de Stafford about 1130, and this Robert was the first to call himself de Peshale, where our family name had its beginning.

Peshale was unnoticed in Domesday. Walter Chetwynd notices Peshall in his history of Pirehill Hundred, but strange to say, he seems to have had knowledge concerning only the Bishops manor and the same applies to the annotator of his history.

BACK TO INDEX PAGE