The Medieval Origins of West Yorkshire Beaumonts

By Gary Beaumont, February 2025

Acknowledgement: Edward M. Beaumont has provided significant input for this document. First, he agreed to DNA testing, which was instrumental to the success of the Beaumont, West Yorkshire, Y-DNA surname project. Second, since the 1700s, his family actively saved information that is key to the story of the Beaumonts. Third, he doggedly searched archives for relevant historical records. And finally, he critiqued this article, generously offering his considerable insight and guidance along the way. This article would not have been possible without his contributions.

Nearly a thousand years ago, William de Bellomonte/Beaumont appears in West Yorkshire, England, under the patronage of the Constable of Chester, or Roger de Lacy (c.1165-1211), a well-known baron who inherited the Honour of Pontefract in 1194 CE. By the 1841 Census of England, there were nearly 2,900 individuals with the surname Beaumont living in Yorkshire, mostly around Huddersfield in West Yorkshire.[1] So, the family grew and prospered and, today, descendants can be found in locations around the world. With this in mind, is it possible to use Y-DNA to determine the origins of this family and to prove that William was the progenitor of it?

History is recorded in the Y-DNA of living males, so this story starts with living males and goes back in time to answer these questions. By combining the results of the first systematic study of Beaumont Y-DNA[2] as well as the historic paper trail, powerful argument exists that our Beaumont ancestors traveled through time and place – from roaming the North Sea, settling in Normandy, finding a place in Norman England, and finally establishing themselves in West Yorkshire, England – the place where William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl. 1194-1227) settled and became the progenitor of many, but certainly not all, modern-day Beaumonts with roots centered around Huddersfield.  

The Y-DNA of William de Bellomonte/Beaumont is unavailable, but his history lives on in the DNA of his descendant -- Edward M. Beaumont. Edward is a distant relative of Richard H. Beaumont (1749-1810) (RHB), who held the Whitley estate in his lifetime and was in possession of the earliest family documents. These documents allowed RHB to create a family tree starting with William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (WBB). 

RHB was familiar with the work of the antiquary Roger Dodsworth (c.1585-1654),[3] who had visited Whitley Hall in 1629 and made notes from the deeds there, most of which were still in RHB's possession. Subsequently, some of these deeds were deposited at Huddersfield Library, but they are now at West Yorkshire Archive Service.[4] Also, some original Beaumont papers are in the Bodleian Libraries, Oxford.[5]

Figure 1. A paragraph extracted from a family tree, in RHB's own hand, which in 1796 CE, he sent to a member of Edward M. Beaumont's family.[6]

Edward M. Beaumont [7]
Private
Richard H. Beaumont (1865-1952) Nottingham & Southwell
George Beaumont (1825-1899) East Bridgford	Lascelles Hall Beaumonts
George Beaumont (1796-1882) Winthorpe & East Bridgford	R.H. Beaumont (1749-1810 d.s.p.) Son of Richard (1719-1764)
Richard Beaumont (1761-1828) Birmingham	(RHB created of an early family tree for the Beaumonts)
George Beaumont (1725-1773) Nottingham, 2nd of George/Frances	Succeeded by Richard (1719-1764), Younger brother Henry (1716-1743)
Thomas Beaumont (1724-1783) Eldest son of George/Frances	Henry (1716-1743 d.s.p.) Son of Richard (1670-1723)	Whitley Beaumonts
George Beaumont (1696-1736) Darton                             married >	Frances Beaumont (1704-1735) Eldest dau. Richard (1670-1723)	Succeeded by Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668)
George Beaumont (1663-1712) Chapelthorpe	Richard Beaumont (1670-1723), grandson of Richard (1638-1706)	grandson of William and Rosamund (from column 2)
William Beaumont (1638-1713) Darton	Richard Beaumont (1638-1706) Lascelles Hall	Richard Beaumont (1574-1631 d.s.p.) End male line
George Beaumont (c. 1600-1664) Darton	Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) Mirfield & Whitley	Edward Beaumont (c.1537-1574) Second son of Richard below
	Richard Beaumont (1570-1656) Mirfield	Richard (d. 1535 d.s.p.)First son of Richard below
Thomas Beaumont (1556-1614) Over-Flockton	William Beaumont (d.c. 1621) Lascelles Hall  >>>>>married >>> >	Rosamund Beaumont …  Only daughter of Richard below
	Richard Beaumont (d. 1569) Emley & Mirfield	Richard Beaumont (c.1518-1573) Whitely
Humphrey Beaumont (c.1515-1568) Flockton	Thomas Beaumont (d. 1561) Mirfield & Kirkheaton	Roger Beaumont (c.1490-1528) Whitley
John Beaumont (c.1490-1521) Netherton & Almondbury	John Beaumont (d.1542)	Richard Beaumont (c. 1459-1540) Whitley
Lawrence Beaumont (fl. 1472) Crosland Foss	John Beaumont (c.1430-1490) Lascelles Hall	Thomas Beaumont (d. 1495) Whitley
John Beaumont (fl. 1442) Crossland Foss & Honley	Henry Beaumont (d. 1468/9) Lascelles Hall	Richard Beaumont (d. 1471) Whitley
Roger Beaumont, 2nd son [8]	John Beaumont, 4th son [9]	Henry Beaumont (c. 1380-1425)  (eldest son) [10]
		Henry Beaumont (c. 1335-1400) Crossland & Whitley
		John Beaumont (c.1315 - c.1371)
		Robert Beaumont (d. 1330) Crossland
		William de Beaumont III  (fl. 1298) Huddersfield & Crossland
		William de Bellomonte II  (c. 1200 - c. 1294)
		William de Bellomonte/Beaumont  (c. 1170 - c. 1230) 1/8th knight’s fee

Table 1. Edward M. Beaumont’s male lineage, including his connection to the Whitley Beaumonts. It is complicated and requires explanation.

This table shows a continuous male line from WBB to EMB, but obviously this is not proof of a continuous male line. A Y-DNA sample from WBB that matches EMB would be the ultimate proof, but that doesn’t seem possible.

Generally, the information in the table comes from publicly available, published sources. The older information is less reliable and is associated with fewer corroborating historical records.

The table shows EMB’s relationship with RHB, most recently through Frances Beaumont (1704-1735), and earlier through common male ancestors, which includes WBB through Henry (c. 1335-1400).

The table is incomplete. For instance, only two women are included. Non-inheriting sons, for the most part, are not included.

Column 2 the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts. They inherited Lascelles Hall by marriage in 1434. Henry Beaumont (d. 1468/9) married Joan Lassell and inherited Lascelles Hall in 1434 when her father, John Lassell, died. The hall was in use by the Beaumonts until about 1641.

The Lascelles Beaumont line continues after RHB. First, his brother, John (1752-1820), inherited. John’s son, Charles (1777-1813), died before his father, so Charles’ son, Richard Henry (1805-1857), inherited. This line died out with Richard Henry, but he passed the Whitley estate to his godson, Henry F. Beaumont (1833-1913), a descendant of Thomas Beaumont (1724-1783) in column 1 and a cousin of EMB. This becomes the Allendale branch, which is not detailed in the table.

Column 3 the Whitley Beaumonts. This male line does not continue after Richard Beaumont (1574-1631) who died without a male heir. He was succeeded by Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) from column 2.

The property holdings of this family grew over time. William de Bellomonte II (fl. 1230) married Elizabeth Foss. She inherited Crosland, so it came to Beaumonts. He also acquired Whitley in 1230 CE. William de Beaumont III (fl. 1298) gave land in Huddersfield, Crosland Foss, North Crosland, Meltham and South Kirby to his son, Robert.

Henry Beaumont (c.1335-1400) is a key figure because at least three lines of descent came from him. This table is the first known demonstration of this connection.

Table 2. Timeline to Most Recent Common Ancestor

EMB	#392890	#214129	#270842	#IN96915
Private	Private	Private	Private	Private
	Private	Private	Private	Private
Richard H. 1865-1952	Joshua 1861-1928 NZ	Charles H 1883 TX 1965 CA	George 1869-1899	Frederick T 1869 NY 1920 Leeds
George 1825-1899	Joseph 1827- 1892 NZ	Peter CS 1832 IL 1910 TX	Charles 1836-1895	Joseph 1832- Yorkshire
George 1796-1882	Joshua 1800-1876 Netherthong	Samuel S 1795 NC	William 1807-1880	George 1796- M. Reb. Singleton
Richard 1761-1828	John 1777-	James 1769 NC 1833 IL	Joseph 1767-1839	Thomas 1765- Rough Lee, Marsden M. Martha Shaw
George 1725-1773	Thomas 1738-1802	John Beaman May 1743 Almondbury 1819 NC	Thomas 1729-1780	George 1736- Golcar M. Mary Bierley
George 1696-1736	Joseph 1710/11-	James Beaumont 1700 - 1749 Almondbury	Ebenezer 1690-1764	Joshua 1695/6-Glocar M. Mary Bailey
George 1663-1712	John Apr 1679 Kirkburton	Family Finder Match	John Beaman 1649-1739	John 1670- Golcar M.Mary Bottomley
William 1638-1713	Abraham Beaumont 1634-1707		Gamaliel Beaman 1623 England 1699 MA	Thomas Beaumont ~ 1640 M. Elizabeth Holt Golcar
George 1600-1664
Thomas 1556-1614	R-FT41***2 1550 CE
Humphrey 1515-1568 FTD8***4
John c.1490-1521		FTC4***6 MRCA 1500 CE
Lawrence fl. 1472 FT3***91	FT3***91 MRCA 1450 CE
John fl. 1442
Roger
Henry 1335-1400
John			FTA7***5
Robert
William III
William II
William de Bellomonte FT3***51	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE
A18420	A18420	A18420	A18420	A18420

Table 2. This table shows a select group of Y-DNA matches that illustrate the various branches of the West Yorkshire Beaumonts. Family trees are also included based on public trees on Ancestry. Some information has been omitted or obscured for privacy. A more complete table of matches is available for FTDNA group members.

As the first systematic Y-DNA study of the Beaumont paternal line, the table focuses on West Yorkshire and the time period that the Beaumonts are known to have lived there.

Edward M. Beaumont (EMB) is the proxy for this paternal line. To date, he matches more than 30 individuals in the surname project. Most of these matches have the surname Beaumont, a variation of the surname Beaumont, or a proven connection to the surname Beaumont. The individuals with a different surname have a shared SNP, which is a guarantee of a shared paternal ancestor.

Most of the testing has been Family Tree DNA’s (FTDNA) basic Y-37[11] test. Although limited, it is valid in determining a Y-DNA connection, but FTDNA’s advanced Big-Y test has produced the greatest insight into this paternal line.

The Beaumont surname project now has 21 completed Big-Y tests. This test identifies SNP mutations, which are permanent mutations in the Y-chromosome. A Y-chromosome mutation occurs randomly, so these SNPs are difficult to precisely date, but each new mutation that occurs is a once-in-all-of-human-history event, making it unique to a single male and all of his male offspring. So, each new SNP starts a new branch of the paternal line.

The sequence of SNPS for a paternal line is called a Haplotree. The Haplotree for West Yorkshire Beaumonts is: R1b > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-L151 > R-P312 > R-Z290 > R-L21 > R-DF13 > R-Z39589 > R-FGC35996 > R-BY9003 > R-BY81032  > R-BY115264 > R-A18420 > R-FT3***51.

Four main branches of the West Yorkshire Beaumonts are identified by 1) R-FT3***51, 2) R-FT3***91, 3) R-FTC4***6, and 4) R-FTA7***5. More branches could exist, but for now the number of branches is holding steady. Do the branches in Table 2 correspond to the three branches in Table 1?

R-FT3***51 is the oldest branch. By that I mean, so far, everyone in Table 2 shares this SNP. FTDNA dates R-FT3***51 to 1150 CE. FTDNA says, “The man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 1150 CE.” So, this branch is the earliest of all the branches, going back to the very beginning of the Beaumont family in West Yorkshire.

Two individuals share R-FT3***51 as their “terminal”[12] SNP: #IN96915, and Louis Bickel (deceased). Again, EMB is the proxy for the paternal line of the Beaumonts of West Yorkshire. FTDNA says, “Based on a Genetic Distance of 9 at the Y-111 test level, #IN96915 and Edward M. Beaumont are estimated to share a common paternal line ancestor who was, with a 95% probability, born between 950 and 1650 CE. The most likely year is rounded to 1350 CE.” This means that the common ancestor with Edward would have been born in the time range of Henry Beaumont (1335-1400), or perhaps one or two generations earlier.

R-FT3***91 defines a branch that is clearly EMB’s branch (Table 1, Column 1). It includes FTD8***4 and R-FT41***2, which are downstream of R-FT3***91. Five individuals in the table share R-FT3***91, and FTDNA estimates that it dates to about 1450, which would be downstream from Henry Beaumont (1335-1400).

Conclusions about the remaining two branches are more speculative.

Regarding the branch R-FTC4***6, does it correspond to the male line of the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts (Table 1, Column 2)?

Richard H. Beaumont (1749-1810) died without issue. His brother, John (1752-1820), inherited. John’s son, Charles (1777-1813), died before his father, so Charles’ son, Richard Henry (1805-1857), inherited. The male lineage of this paternal line died with the passing of Richard Henry in 1857. Then, his godson, Henry F. Beaumont (1833-1913), inherited the Whitley estate. Henry F. was a descendant of Thomas (1724-1783) in Table 1, Column 1 and a cousin of EMB. As a result, there is no known living male from the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts, so it is not possible to compared Y-DNA to establish a connection to this paternal line.

The surname project does have a descendant of Charlotte Beaumont (1779-1815). Charlotte was the sister of Charles (1777-1813) and the aunt of Richard Henry (1805-1857). In 1857, by Royal authority, her son, Richard Henry John Beaumont McCumming, was licensed to “assume and use” the surname Beaumont. Obviously, his male descendants would not match the West Yorkshire Beaumont Y-DNA profile because the paternal line would be McCumming. In any case, the ancestor is #B1054617, and he has autosomal (transferred) results on FTDNA. To date, however, he has no matches with anyone in the surname project. This means, if R-FTC4***6 is connected to the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts, then the connection would be much earlier.

It  is fairly easy to identify where the paternal lines died out in Lascelles Hall Beaumonts between Thomas Beaumont (d. 1561) and Richard Henry (1805-1857). Of course, a “natural birth” could have occurred anywhere in this time period and before.

FTDNA dates SNP R-FTC4***6 to a man born about 1550 CE. John Beaumont (d. 1542), in the Lascelles lineage, satisfies this estimated date. He produced five sons: Thomas (heir who died 1561), Nicholas, Richard, Edward and Henry. SNP R-FTC4***6 could be connected to one of these sons and represent the only surviving male from of the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts. It would be difficult and probably impossible to prove it, though.  

Similarly, for R-FTA7***5, the Whitley Beaumont branch (Table 1, column 3), there is a dead zone between Thomas (d. 1495) and Richard (1575-1631). In other words, there are no other sons who could have created a twig off this branch. Earlier, Richard Beaumont (d. 1471) produced five sons. So, one of his non-inheriting sons (Robert, Christopher, Richard, or William) is the likely progenitor of this branch, which is consistent with the estimated age of SNP R-FTA7***5 at 1500 CE.

The exception to this might be for the paternal line of Gamaliel Beaman (1623-1700), which is in the branch of SNP R-FTA7***5.

The only Whitley Beaumont alive at the time of Gamaliel’s birth was Richard Beaumont (1575-1631).[13] The only Lascelles Hall Beaumonts alive at the time of Gamaliel’s birth were Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) and his father, Richard Beaumont (1570-1656) of Mirfield.

The paternal line of the Whitley Beaumonts ended with Richard Beaumont (1574-1631) who died without a male heir. In his will, he named Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) of the Lascelles Beaumonts to inherit the Whitely estate, and Thomas’ line went extinct in 1857. As a result, comparing Y-DNA with a living male descendant is not possible.

In the absence of Y-DNA evidence, it is necessary to turn to circumstantial evidence, including motive, means, and opportunity. Here, we explore Gamaliel Beaman, the ancestor of FL Beaman, #270842. Who had a motive, the means, and the opportunity to send a twelve-year old boy, alone, to America?

The name Gamaliel, which means the “recompense of God,” suggests he was illegitimate. One fact that seems to support this – Gamaliel’s wife, Sarah, presented her children for baptism because she was the “member in whose right they were baptized.” For Gamaliel, there does not seem to be a baptismal record in West Yorkshire, or for that matter, in all of England.[14] But, I suggest that his father was Richard Beaumont (1575-1631),[15] who certainly had a reputation as a bounder and was apparently dubbed the “Black Dick of the North” by King James I.

Richard (1575-1631) died 4 years before Gamaliel immigrated, and it was the family of Richard (1570-1656) that potentially had a motive to send Gamaliel to America, especially if it was thought that he threatened the inheritance of the Whitley estate.

Regarding means, Richard (1570-1656) certainly had the power and money to hide illegitimacy and ship the “problem” to America. He also had a relationship with Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661).

Richard Saltonstall married Grace Kaye, November 1609 in Almondbury, Yorkshire.[16] [17] In 1629, he was appointed chairman of emigration “adventurers” for the Massachusettes Bay Company. After the death of his first wife, he sold his estate in Yorkshire and, with his children, sailed to America on the Arbella (Winthrop Fleet), landing at Salem in June 1630, and establishing Watertown, Massachusettes. In March 1631, he returned to England. He continued to hold property in Massachusettes and Connecticut, and he was responsible for sending groups of people to America, some of whom managed his properties there.

Richard’s son, Richard Saltonstall (1610-1694), was baptized in Yorkshire and lived at Woodsome, near Almondbury. He married in 1633,[18] and in May 1635, he, his wife, Muriel, and their child, sailed on the Susan and Ellin, from London to Massachusetts Bay.[19] [20] In the same expedition, Gamaliel sailed on a sister ship, Elizabeth and Ann (May 1635).[21]   

Edward Beaumont (1537-1574), lord of Whitley Hall, Yorkshire, was the son-in-law of Samuel Saltonstall (1560), father of Richard (1586-16610. And Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661) owed £20, “forced loan,” to Richard Beaumont (1574-1631), lord of Whitley, Yorkshire, according to a letter dated 7 July 1608.

Motive, means , and opportunity -- Threat to an inheritance of the Whitley estate; rich and powerful people stacking the deck in their favor, and a £20 debt owed by the individual organizing the voyage to America. It’s the stuff about which novels are written. Like in novels, there is a dead body that could provide clues. Richard Beaumont (1575-1631) is buried at St. John the Baptist,[22] Kirkheaton, Yorkshire. The Y-DNA evidence does not negate this theory, but it is still just a theory.

Figure 2. Folger Digital Image Collection. Source Call Number: X.d.330 (https://luna.folger.edu)

Figure 3. Here lyeth interred the Body of Sir Richard Beaumont of Whitley Hall in the Countie of Yorke, Knight and Baronet who departed this life the 20th day of October Anno AEtatis svae 58 Anno Domini 1631, expecting a glorious resurrection at the coming of Christ. Who dying unmarried made Thomas Beaumont, sonn and heir apparent to Richard Beaumont of Kexbrugh in the Countie of Yorks Esq. one of his executors and heir to his park at Sandal, and to his ancient inheritance in Whitley, South Crosland, Meltham and Lepton lying in the said Countie. Who having performed ye trust in him reposed, in memory of his worthy kinsman, hath caused this memorial to be erected. Vivet post funera virtus

Other Factoids

One unique Y-DNA match of particular interest is #240331, even though he does not appear in this table. He and his family have a long and early history in Scotland. At first glance, this match would seem to be a mistake. How can #240331 from Scotland be related to the Beaumonts of West Yorkshire? #240331 shares SNP R-A18420 and is 9 steps different from EMB at Y-111, suggesting that his most recent common ancestor was William de Beaumont III (fl. 1298). This same William is known to have fought in Scotland because he appears in the Galloway Rolls. He took out a letter of protection for service in Gascony in 1294. Beaumont is listed there in the company of the household banneret, William de Ryther [1] and is referred to as “Ryther’s Socius.” In this context the term “socius” was a synonym for “companion-in-arms.” Beaumont appears to have served with Ryther on the Falkirk campaign of 1298 and was definitely with him in the king’s household division in 1301.[2] So, the SNP R-A18420 could have evolved in West Yorkshire. It is also one more piece of evidence that the Haplotree is dated correctly and, if correct, provides a Y-DNA connection all the way back to the grandson and heir of William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (1170-1230).

For branch R-FTC4***6, there are Family Finder[3] connections to Squire Boone, father of Daniel Boone, which corroborates oral family histories. Squire Boone led a group of people from Pennsylvania to North Carolina in the mid-1700s. And Daniel Boone led settlers through the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky later in the 1700s.

People being people, there is evidence of various assignations or unexpected paternal events, which is not surprising given the fact that we are talking about a period of 800 years or more. So, individuals in the surname project have the surname Beaumont, but they do not match the shared Y-DNA profile. And there are individuals in the surname project who do not share the surname, but they do share the Y-DNA profile. The reasons? In the surname project there are two confirmed cases of illegitimacy, but there are probably more unconfirmed cases. Already mentioned is a surname change. There is also the possibility of infidelity and secret adoption. 

In fact, EMB’s closest match is #991001. They match at SNP FTD8***4. Since the surname does not match, it is likely that a woman with the surname Durrance gave birth to a son whose father was a Beaumont, and that son retained the surname Durrance. Or a woman became pregnant by a Beaumont, and then she married a Durrance, giving the surname Durrance to the son. Although Humphrey (1515-1568) in EMB’s column is assigned SNP R-FTD8***4, he isn’t necessarily the common ancestor. The common ancestor could be from one generation before or after Humphrey.

  Family Trees

It may be possible to fill in the blanks on the various family trees back to the late 1500s. However, there are many roadblocks.

Generally, family trees are fairly accurate from the present back to the first Census of England, compiled in 1841. Church records paired with census records give a geographic context that helps distinguish one family from another.

Prior to 1841 CE, church records are the only available source of genealogical information, and they have the “problem of John,” as I call it. “John Beaumont” is such a common name in West Yorkshire, and they all lived in close proximity, so it is difficult to distinguish one John from another. For that matter, there is a similar problem with numerous other given names such as William, Thomas, George, Abraham, etc. Period church records simply do not contain enough information to differentiate between individuals with the same given name, similar birth dates, and living in close proximity to each other.

There are also gaps in church records. For instance, church records at All Hallows, Almondbury, start in 1557. However, the records at St. Michaels and All Angels, Thornhill, don’t start until 23 years later, 1580. And the image for 1580 is unreadable. Gaps exist in the records at Thornhill, too, between 1584-1586 and 1594-1599 as well as other years.

Finally, births were not recorded, only baptisms, and for a variety of reasons, not everyone appears in the baptismal records. For instance, Gamaliel Beaman does seem to appear in any baptismal record anywhere in England.

The abbreviation “MRCA” in the table stands for ”time to the most recent common ancestor.” It represents a FTDNA estimate based on STR differences between EMB and other individuals.  A MRCA dated to around 1350 CE is at least 200 years before church records appeared, and the common ancestor could be anyone from any of the branches, the various major and minor sons, and possibly the illegitimate sons. It is, therefore, highly unlikely, with an MRCA of 1350 CE, that one could name their common ancestor to EMB. In these cases, Y-DNA may be the only genealogical clue to the origins of some branches of this paternal line, especially for the earliest matches.

It should also be noted that FTDNA’s dating of the various SNPs and STR matches is not precise. Even at Y-111, “the most likely year” is rounded and the range for that date is plus 150 years and minus 200 years. The same is true for dating SNPs. Also, FTDNA is continually updating the dates based on new testing, so the dating process is a constantly moving target.  

Nevertheless, DNA doesn’t lie. In isolation, these DNA results do not necessarily offer many insights into one’s family history though. It’s in comparing and contrasting with others that a clearer picture emerges. That’s has been the goal of the Beaumont surname project on FTDNA. And by combining Y-DNA, the historic paper trail, the surname “Beaumont,” the location “West Yorkshire,” we know, with a high level of certainty, the individuals in this table are paternally related with the likely progenitor being William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (c. 1170-c. 1230).

Figure 4. The thirteen ancient parishes of West Yorkshire include: Almondbury (1557), Batley (1559), Birstall (1558), Dewsbury (1538), Emley (1754), Halifax (1517), High Hoyland, Huddersfield (1562), Kirkburton (1541), Mirfield (1559), Penistone (1643), and Thornhill (1580). St. John the Baptist, Kirkheaton, favored by the Whitley Beaumonts, is located between Huddersfield and Mirfield. The “Beaumont Chapel” was established there by Edward Beaumont (1537-1574) of Whitley stipulated in his will that he wished to be buried “in my own Quire at Kirkheaton.” Richard Beaumont (1574-1631) was also buried there with his effigy prominently displayed. The earliest church record at Kirkheaton dates to the year 1653. Notes: The year of the first church record for each parish is in parentheses following the parish name. And historically, Almondbury was more important than Huddersfield.

Part 2: William de Bellomonte

References:

[1] The 1841 Census of England suggests Almondbury is the demographic epicenter for the Beaumonts in Yorkshire. Nearly 25% of the census records are from there. Besides Almondbury, the Almondbury District includes Holmfirth, Hall Bower, Honley, Lockwood, Longley, Meltham, Netherton, Newsome, Slaithwaite, South Crosland, and Upperthong. By adding neighboring Huddersfield where, by the middle of the 19th century, a growing number of mills and factories attracted workers, the percentage of census records for “Beaumont” increases to nearly 40%. Historically, Almondbury was more important than Huddersfield.

[2] Family Tree DNA. n.d. Beaumont Surname Project. Accessed January 2023. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/beaumont/activity-feed

[3] Dodsworth, Roger. 1884. Dodsworth’s Yorkshire Notes (Agbrigg).” The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal. Vol. VIII, p. 502. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Yorkshire_Archaeological_Journal/vDI4jOQFbTMC   

[4] Kirklees, West Yorkshire Archive Service. KCZ0001 – “BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY, FAMILY AND ESTATE RECORDS.” Catalog Finding Number: DD/WB.

[5] Macray, William Dunn. 1884. The Beaumont Papers. London: Roxburghe Club.

[6] Beaumont, Edward M. Beaumont Archives, No. 1/157.

[7] Beaumont, Edward M. n.d. http://beaumontarchives.blogspot.com/p/about.html. Accessed January 2023.

[8] Burke, Bernard. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of Peerage, Baronetage. Harrison & Sons. 1915. PP. 92-93. https://archive.org/details/b3136410x/b3136410x (Allendale)

[9] Foster, Joseph. Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire. London, 1874. pp. https://archive.org/details/pedigreesofcount01fost. (Lascelles Hall Beaumonts)

[10] Burke, Bernard. A Genealogical Dictionary of the Landed Gentry. Henry Colburn, London. 1834. Volume 2. PP. 319-23. https://archive.org/details/agenealogicalan00austgoog/agenealogicalan00austgoog (Whitley Beaumonts)

[11] The entry level Y-DNA test at FTDNA is the Y-37 test. It can be used to identify individuals related to the West Yorkshire Beaumonts. However, the Y-111  test is recommended because it produces nearly three times the data of the Y-37 test. These tests identify Y-DNA STRs and STR matches. Generally, the lower the number of STR differences between individuals, the more recent the common male ancestor. And the more STRs measured, the higher the accuracy.

[12] A "terminal” SNP refers to the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that marks the most recent known subclade on a genetic family tree, indicating the latest branch in a person's paternal lineage based on current research. FTDNA estimates that there are six downstream variants remaining in this branch, which could be determined by testing a close male relative.

[13] https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/beaumont-sir-richard-1574-1631. Accessed Aug 2024

[14] Richard Beaumont (1574-1631) and Richard Beaumont (1570-1656) both kept homes in London.

[15] Gamaliel was not mentioned in the will of Richard Beaumont (1574-1631). Richard never married, but he had two daughters who were provided for.

[16] U.S., New England Marriages Prior to 1700 (Accessed on Ancestry.com)

[17] West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812 (Accessed on Ancestry.com) Names listed as Gratia Kay and Richus Sallerstall

[18] London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 (Accessed on Ancestry.com)

[19] Savage, James. “Gleanings for New England History.” New World Immigrants. Michael Tepper, ed. 1979. Vol. 1, p. 40 … https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/48115/

[20] Hotten, John Camden. The Original List of Persons of Quality. 1874. p. 59 … https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/510649/

[21] Anderson, Robert Charles. The Great Migration 1634-1635. 1995. Vol. 1, p. 217 … https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2496/ 

[22] Of the are 12 ancient parishes in West Yorkshire, St. John the Baptist, Kirkheaton, is the only parish whose records do not go back to 1623.

[23] Ryther is a village between Leeds and York with links to the Pontefract honour.

[24] Simpkin, David. “The Galloway Roll (1300): Its Content, Composition and Value to Military History.” Historical Research. Volume 82 (2009), Issue 218, pp. 613–34. 

[25] https://www.familytreedna.com/products/family-finder