In Sir Anthony Deane‘s time, there were of course other men of the same name, of varying degrees of prominence, some of whom have been confused with our shipwright knight. Let’s take a look at some of these Deanes, and see who they really were.
Harwich Deanes
The Deanes of Harwich have already been covered in a previous post, but it is worth reiterating that Sir Anthony was not one of the Harwich Anthonies, despite the timing and the situation being perfect for it to be the case. It is still likely that the Harwich Deanes were related to Sir Anthony in some way, but no obvious connection has been established – it would be worth looking into places in the country where Lidia (“Lidah”) was used as a female forename at the time.
Anthony Deane of Hyde Park/Dynes Hall
In 1652, part of Hyde Park was sold to an Anthony Deane, but as records such as this and this show, the Deane in question was Anthony Deane esq. of St Martin-in-the-Fields, London. Some historians equated the two as because our Anthony Deane was a knight, it is logical that before the knighthood he would have been as esteemed as an esquire, but in the 1650s our Anthony was merely a humble young shipwright, with no title nor any particular wealth.
In fact, Anthony Deane esq. of Hyde Park was part of the family of Deanes at Great Maplestead, and he held the manor of Dynes Hall there (the family had held Dynes, Hosdens, and Caxtons manors). The family were closely linked to the Tyndall family, and indeed one of the men was named Deane Tyndall – a common forename these days, but extremely unusual back then.
This particular Anthony Deane was also of the Inner Temple, and as this record shows, his burial date was October 7 1676.
“A. Deane”, friend of Henry Cromwell
In 1656, an “A. Deane” sent a letter to Henry Cromwell, son of Oliver, giving a brief update of the situation from his perspective. There was “nothing new butt the addition of collonell Montague to bee a generall-att-sea. Hee is now gone to Chattam to veiw his ship.“ This Deane’s spelling was very ‘open’, but there was an awareness of naval matters.
This Deane, as well as Sir Anthony, is thought to have been a relative of Richard Deane, ally of the Cromwells, and this combined with the mention of Chatham has led some to believe they were one and the same.
However, as with the above, Deane was just a shipwright at the time, and showed none of the political inclination of his later life, so it is unlikely to have been him. The penman could well have been the Anthony Deane mentioned in the State Papers in November 1655, who was even mentioned in the same section as Montague, who was of the Council at the time. The signature on the original would confirm or deny for sure, but without that it remains doubtful.
Others
An Anthony Deane, husband of Margery Lebscom (aka Lipscomb) was active in Putney in the 1640-50s; Sir Anthony’s wife Christian first married John Dawes of Putney, so there is a link to the area, but they were most likely unrelated.
Another Anthony Deane, this time of Surrey, may be of most interest to those keen on unusual wills, as his, proved in 1655, certainly goes against the grain, ignoring the traditional “In the name of God” intro in favour of one that heavily references the Bible, complete with selected passages in the margin. The intro paraphrases some of these passages: “After fiftie yeares I take into Consideration that I am but grasse and my glorie as the fflower of the grasse“.
Harwicensis 