Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John de Sutton the younger

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Sir John de Sutton (died 1369 or 1370), of Dudley, Staffordshire, and
Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire, is the male line ancestor of the well
known barons known as Lords Dudley. Sir John de Sutton is known to
have married twice. He married (1st) 25 December 1357 Katherine de
Stafford, daughter of Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford,
by his 1st wife, Margaret, daughter and heiress of Hugh de Audley,
Knt., Earl of Gloucester. Katherine was born on or before 16 Sept.
1348, and was living as late as 30 June 1361. She died before 25 Dec.
1361. Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).

Sir John de Sutton was succeeded by a son and heir, John de Sutton the
younger, who according to records was born at Coleshill (in Arden),
Warwickshire 6 December 1361. If correct, then the younger John would
have to be the child of Katherine de Stafford, as Joan de Clinton's
first husband, John de Montfort, was still living 25 May 1361. This
is the position taken by Patrick W. Montague-Smith in his article
entitled, "'An Unrecorded Line of Descent From King Edward I of
England With Some Early Settled American Descendants'" which appeared
in The Genealogist, 5 (1984):131-157. Yet, still it is odd that the
younger John de Sutton was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, as this
property is known to have been the inheritance of Joan de Clinton, Sir
John de Sutton's second wife. Also, contemporary records indicate
that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely had a
son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH Warwick 4
(1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654&strquery=%22Andrew%20de%20Astley%22

Even more bizarre, there is a contemporary lawsuit dated 1363 which
shows that Katherine de Stafford's father, Earl Ralph de Stafford, was
suing in that year to recover money he had given for the marriage of
his daughter, Katherine, to John de Sutton. By the terms of Katherine
and John's marriage settlement, it was stipulated that should
Katherine died within four years of the marriage that the money which
the Earl had given for the marriage should be returned to him, and for
which restitution he had entered into a bond for himself and his heirs
[Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist.
Staffs. 13) (1892): 38]. It is inconceivable to me that if Katherine
de Stafford was the mother of a surviving child by her marriage to
John de Sutton that her father would be suing for the return of this
money. Thus, we have a third indication (and a rather strong one at
that) that Katherine de Stafford was not the mother of Sir John de
Sutton's son and heir at all but died without issue. Fourth, if
Katherine de Stafford was the mother of the younger John de Sutton,
then she would have been at been 12 years old (or thereabouts) at this
child's birth, which is virtually impossible.

Is there any other evidence which indicates whether Katherine de
Stafford or Joan de Clinton was the mother of Sir John de Sutton's son
and heir, the younger John. Actually, yes there is. In recent time,
I've learned that in 1484, a descendant of the younger John de Sutton,
namely John Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley, referred to William Catesby,
Esq., as his kinsman ["consanguineum"] [Reference: Nicolas, The
History of the Town & School of Rugby (1826): 21-29]. See the
following weblinks below for this information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicolas+Rugby#PPA22,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicolas+Rugby#PPA27,M1

William Catesby's ancestry can be found at Jim Weber's great database
at the following weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jweber&id=I34257&style=TEXT

Studying William Cateby's ancestry, it is significant to note that his
paternal grandmother, Margaret (or Rose) Montfort, was a granddaughter
of the same Joan de Clinton named above, which Joan was wife
successively of Sir John de Montfort and Sir John de Sutton. If Lord
Dudley's grandfather, the younger John de Sutton, was the son of this
Joan de Clinton, it would make Lord Dudley and William Catesby related
in the 3rd and 4th degrees (or, if you prefer second cousins once
removed). Otherwise, there would be no known kinship between the two
men.

Given the evidence cited above and this new evidence, I conclude that
Joan de Clinton is indeed the mother of John de Sutton the younger,
not Katherine de Stafford as stated by Montague-Smith. I also
conclude that the alleged Dec. 1361 birth date of John de Sutton the
younger is evidently in error, presumably only by a year. This change
in the Sutton-Dudley pedigree thus removes the earliest Plantagenet
connection which had been claimed for the family of the Lords Dudley.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[a***@mindspring.com]

Dear Douglas,

Excellent post.

One comment.

http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/d7000/ (Not functioning any longer).
Camden and Fetherston, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877):
125-127.
Frank Wayne Ayres (1988): 305, English Ancestry of Peter Bulkeley,
Grace Chetwood, etc.

All give a slightly different ancestry for Rose Montfort than Jim
Weber's website.

I believe they all say that she was dau. of:

William de Montfort and Agneta Holt and that William was the son of
Richard de Montfort and Rose Brandeston.

That Richard was a brother of the Sir John de Montfort who married
Joan Clinton. They were apparently both illegitimate sons of Sir
Piers Montfort by Lora Astley.

Rose de Montfort apparently had a sister Helena who was co-heiress and
married Richard Merebrooke, Lord of Yattendon
(see Norris, Steve, le Norreys Family in England from 1135-1650 and
Camden and Fetherston, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877):
125-127).

I hope this is useful.

Doug Smith

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Doug ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Yes, you're correct that Jim Weber's pedigree of William Catesby is
flawed. Using more reliable sources, this morning I traced William
Catesby's Montfort ancestry back to Richard de Montfort, the younger
illegitimate son of Sir Peter de Montfort, 3rd Lord Montfort. I
believe the pedigree below is sound. If so, then it appears that
Richard Montfort (No. 2 below) was the brother-in-law, not son of Joan
de Clinton, as you say.

1. Peter de Montfort, Knt., 3rd Lord Montfort, died 1370. He acquired
the manor of Kingshurst (in Coleshill), Warwickshire from John de
Clinton, lord of Maxstoke, in 1354-1355. John Throsby, Thoroton's
History of Nottinghamshire, 3 (1790): 27 (sub Loudham). Complete
Peerage, 9 (1936): 128-130 (sub Montfort). VCH Warwick 4 (1947):
47-67. Ancient Deeds--Series AS & WS (List & Index Soc. 158) (1979):
91 (Deed A.S.492).
2. Richard de Montfort, Knt., of Kingshurst (in Coleshill),
Warwickshire, illegitimate son, born before 1339, died before 1395,
married before 1364 Rose de Bishopsdon, widow of Nicholas Durvasal,
and daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Bishopsdon, of Lapworth,
Warwickshire. Rose was living in 1420. John Throsby, Thoroton's
History of Nottinghamshire, 3 (1790): 27 (sub Loudham). Complete
Peerage, 9 (1936): 128-130 (sub Montfort). VCH Warwick 4 (1947):
47-67; 5 (1949): 108-116. Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds, 4 (1902):
263-276.
3. William Montfort. VCH Warwick 4 (1947): 47-67.
4. Margaret Montfort, daughter and co-heiress, living 1451. She
married before 1427 John Catesby, of Lapworth, Warwickshire, in right
of his wife. He died before 1439. VCH Warwick 4 (1947): 47-67; 5
(1949): 108-116.
5. William Catesby, Knt. He married Philippe Bishopsdon, daughter and
co-heiress of Sir William Bishopsdon (died 1447). VCH Warwick 5
(1949): 108-116.
6. William Catesby, Esq., forfeited his lands for treason in 1487.
VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 108-116.

The altered Montfort-Catesby pedigree indicates that kinship between
William Catesby, Esq., and John Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley, must be found
in a different route than by common descent from Joan de Clinton.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

While it's true that William Catesby, Esq of Ashby St Legers was
attainted in 1485, the attainder was voided 11H7.

That picky distinction is probably very important to any of his living
descent (if any).

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

This Sir John de Sutton used to be considered as an ancestor of another John
Washington of Surrey County, Virginia.

Gary Boyd Roberts so mentions this John Washington in RD 600.

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

Why is that?

Me ke aloha pumehana,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sir John de Sutton (died 1369 or 1370), of Dudley, Staffordshire, and
Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire, is the male line ancestor of the well
known barons known as Lords Dudley. Sir John de Sutton is known to
have married twice. He married (1st) 25 December 1357 Katherine de
Stafford, daughter of Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford,
by his 1st wife, Margaret, daughter and heiress of Hugh de Audley,
Knt., Earl of Gloucester. Katherine was born on or before 16 Sept.
1348, and was living as late as 30 June 1361. She died before 25 Dec.
1361. Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).
Sir John de Sutton was succeeded by a son and heir, John de Sutton the
younger, who according to records was born at Coleshill (in Arden),
Warwickshire 6 December 1361. If correct, then the younger John would
have to be the child of Katherine de Stafford, as Joan de Clinton's
first husband, John de Montfort, was still living 25 May 1361. This
is the position taken by Patrick W. Montague-Smith in his article
entitled, "'An Unrecorded Line of Descent From King Edward I of
England With Some Early Settled American Descendants'" which appeared
in The Genealogist, 5 (1984):131-157. Yet, still it is odd that the
younger John de Sutton was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, as this
property is known to have been the inheritance of Joan de Clinton, Sir
John de Sutton's second wife. Also, contemporary records indicate
that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely had a
son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH Warwick 4
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654&strquery=%22Andrew%20de%20Astley%22
Even more bizarre, there is a contemporary lawsuit dated 1363 which
shows that Katherine de Stafford's father, Earl Ralph de Stafford, was
suing in that year to recover money he had given for the marriage of
his daughter, Katherine, to John de Sutton. By the terms of Katherine
and John's marriage settlement, it was stipulated that should
Katherine died within four years of the marriage that the money which
the Earl had given for the marriage should be returned to him, and for
which restitution he had entered into a bond for himself and his heirs
[Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist.
Staffs. 13) (1892): 38]. It is inconceivable to me that if Katherine
de Stafford was the mother of a surviving child by her marriage to
John de Sutton that her father would be suing for the return of this
money. Thus, we have a third indication (and a rather strong one at
that) that Katherine de Stafford was not the mother of Sir John de
Sutton's son and heir at all but died without issue. Fourth, if
Katherine de Stafford was the mother of the younger John de Sutton,
then she would have been at been 12 years old (or thereabouts) at this
child's birth, which is virtually impossible.
Is there any other evidence which indicates whether Katherine de
Stafford or Joan de Clinton was the mother of Sir John de Sutton's son
and heir, the younger John. Actually, yes there is. In recent time,
I've learned that in 1484, a descendant of the younger John de Sutton,
namely John Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley, referred to William Catesby,
Esq., as his kinsman ["consanguineum"] [Reference: Nicolas, The
History of the Town & School of Rugby (1826): 21-29]. See the
http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicolas+Rugby#PPA22,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicolas+Rugby#PPA27,M1
William Catesby's ancestry can be found at Jim Weber's great database
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jweber&id=I34257&style=TEXT
Studying William Cateby's ancestry, it is significant to note that his
paternal grandmother, Margaret (or Rose) Montfort, was a granddaughter
of the same Joan de Clinton named above, which Joan was wife
successively of Sir John de Montfort and Sir John de Sutton. If Lord
Dudley's grandfather, the younger John de Sutton, was the son of this
Joan de Clinton, it would make Lord Dudley and William Catesby related
in the 3rd and 4th degrees (or, if you prefer second cousins once
removed). Otherwise, there would be no known kinship between the two
men.
Given the evidence cited above and this new evidence, I conclude that
Joan de Clinton is indeed the mother of John de Sutton the younger,
not Katherine de Stafford as stated by Montague-Smith. I also
conclude that the alleged Dec. 1361 birth date of John de Sutton the
younger is evidently in error, presumably only by a year. This change
in the Sutton-Dudley pedigree thus removes the earliest Plantagenet
connection which had been claimed for the family of the Lords Dudley.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 26, 5:22 pm, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
< On Dec 24, 5:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
wrote:
< > Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< [snip]
<
< > Also, contemporary records indicate
< > that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely
had a
< > son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH
Warwick 4
< > (1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
<
< >http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654&strquery=
%2...

< Actually the cited reference in VCH Warwickshire does not explicitly
< say that this younger John Sutton was a son of Joan Clinton, calling
< him only "John son of John de Sutton". Admittedly the context of
the
< reference (the entail of Joan's manor of Coleshill) suggests that
John
< was her son

It is clear from the context of the Coleshill fine that John son of
John de Sutton was Joan de Clinton's son. This fine was a settlement
of Joan's own property which she inherited from her own father. Had
she been dealing with Sutton property, on the other hand, it would
not be so clear.

<But the same context suggests strongly that this John
< died before Joan, since the manor in question passed to a son of
hers
< by a different marriage.

Actually settlements such as the one involving Joan de Clinton's
property were often altered after the fact and the conditions stated
in the original fine were not performed as set forth in the fines. In
a related vein, I encountered two fines of this same time period just
this morning, the conditions of which were not afterwards followed.
As with the Joan de Clinton fine, there is not an obvious reason for
the subsequent change in who subsequently got the property.

Because such settlements were not set in concrete, one can not assume
that John de Sutton predeceased his mother without issue on the basis
of this fine alone, as done by Mr. Montague-Smith. Rather, all we can
tell from this fine is that Joan de Clinton had a son, John de Sutton,
who was alive as of the date of this fine. That's it. For the
purposes of this case, it is sufficient only to show to Joan de
Clinton had a son, John de Sutton. The fine confirms that she did
have such a son.

VCH Warwick 4 gives further information regarding the actual fine. It
states Joan de Clinton entailed the manor of Coleshill, Warwickshire
in the first place upon her issue by her third husband, Sir Henry
Griffith, in the second place on John son of John de Sutton, and in
the third upon Baldwin Montfort her son by her first husband, "to whom
it eventually came." I believe there was also yet another reversion,
in the event that Baldwin Montfort's issue failed, for the manor to
pass to Joan de Clinton's half-brother, Sir John Rochford. As far as
I can tell, Joan de Clinton intended the property to go to her
children or their descendants, and, failing that, to her half-
brother. She would have little or no interest in her property going
to a step-son, especially if she had children of her own who were her
next of kin.

So, while it is `clear that Joan de Clinton had a son, John de Sutton,
no evidence whatsoever has been set forth that Katherine de Stafford
had a son, John de Sutton, or, for that matter, any issue at all. In
fact, the records suggest she died childless being about 12 years of
age. In short, Mr. Montague-Smith's theory is based on a house of
cards that's almost missing the whole deck of cards. A little puff
and it collapses.

< If the John Sutton who did survive and have descendants was in fact
the son of Joan
< Clinton, how are we to explain that the manor of Coleshill did not
< pass to him (and his descendants)?

This question is not one that should be asked, as the settlements set
forth in such fines were not always followed.

<The solution that the elder John
< Sutton had sons named John by both of his wives seems to better fit
< the history of the ownership of this particular property.

To accept the Montague-Smith theory, one has to assume that the elder
John de Sutton had a child by a 12 year old wife, which child
survived, and that his father-in-law immediately sued him for the
return of the money given for the marriage. I find this
incomprehensible, both as to the age of the mother and the suit for
the return of the marriage money assuming the wife had surviving
issue. Rather, the age of the mother and the suit for the return of
the money are both strong indicators that the elder John de Sutton's
marriage to Katherine de Stafford was brief AND childless.

< The cited VCH reference does not appear to really support the new
< hypothesis regarding the maternity of the younger John Sutton. As
to
< the birth date and birth place of the younger John Sutton (also
raised
< as reasons for deeming Joan Clinton to be his mother), the cited
< article by Patrick Montague-Smith addresses these issues explicitly
< and cites the contemporary evidence supporting the birth
information,
< especially the date (which actually might be a year too late, not
too
< early), and explains why it was reasonable for John to be born at
< Coleshill.

Actually the standard article in print on the Dudley family skirts the
issue regarding the identity of the mother of John de Sutton the
younger. And the much later Montague-Smith article slants the
evidence in such a way to make it appear that all the questions have
been resolved in favor of Katherine de Stafford being the mother of
the younger John de Sutton. This is not a true picture of the
evidence.

< The same article also addresses the lawsuit of Katherine
< Stafford's father following her early death and provides an
< explanation for it. It may be "inconceivable" for a modern
researcher
< to understand the basis for this suit, but we've all heard many
times
< that it's unwise to apply "modern" standards and practices to
medieval
< events.

So why are you?

< All but one of the supposed reasons for assigning a different
< maternity to the younger John Sutton were covered by Montague-Smith,
< in much fuller detail and with considerable evidence not mentioned
in
< the original post in this thread. The only remaining reason cited
in
< the original post for Joan Clinton as mother of the younger John
< Sutton is a relationship claimed a century later between his
< descendant and William Catesby - a relationship which cannnot
< presently be determined in detail, now that the relationship
proposed
< originally has been dismissed.

The Montague-Smith article was predicated on the premise that
Katherine de Stafford was the mother of the son and heir. A major
red flag that something is wrong with Montague-Smith's premise is the
fact that John de Sutton the younger was born at Coleshill,
Warwickshire, which property was the inheritance of the elder John de
Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton. While the Coleshill birthplace of
the younger John de Sutton is not absolute evidence that Joan de
Clinton is his mother, it is highly suggestive that she was.

< At the very least, it seems premature to definitively conclude that
< Joan Clinton was the mother of John Sutton, the ancestor of the
Lords
< Dudley - especially given the substantial case made by the Montague-
< Smith article, which has not been adequately refuted here.

As I said above, I find it incomprehensible that Mr. Montague-Smith's
theory is correct. To suggest that it is "premature" to question Mr.
Montague-Smith's theory is to ignore not one but several red flags in
his proposed theory.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 26, 9:45 pm, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
< Your opinion on the matter is now on the record - such as it is,
< albeit in a less substantial and authoritative forum than the one in
< which Mr. Montague-Smith chose to publish his conclusions. Readers
< can choose to make their own judgments on the varying conclusions.

I find it inconceivable that Katherine de Stafford was the mother of
the younger John de Sutton.

< For the purposes of YOUR case it is not sufficient only to show that
< Joan Clinton had a son John Sutton. It's more important to show
that
< this son John was the only son of that name of his father John. -
and
< you haven't done that. In fact, you accepted a different conclusion
< in your books. (Two John Suttons, one by each wife)

For the purposes of this particular case, it is sufficient only to
show that Joan de Clinton had a son John de Sutton. If you agree with
Mr. Montague-Smith, YOU must show that Katherine de Stafford had a son
named John de Sutton. This you haven't done. Nor has Montague-
Smith. In fact, just the opposite!

< > VCH Warwick 4 gives further information regarding the actual
fine. It
< > states Joan de Clinton entailed the manor of Coleshill,
Warwickshire
< > in the first place upon her issue by her third husband, Sir Henry
< > Griffith, in the second place on John son of John de Sutton, and
in
< > the third upon Baldwin Montfort her son by her first husband, "to
whom
< > it eventually came." I believe there was also yet another
reversion,
< > in the event that Baldwin Montfort's issue failed, for the manor
to
< > pass to Joan de Clinton's half-brother, Sir John Rochford. As far
as
< > I can tell, Joan de Clinton intended the property to go to her
< > children or their descendants, and, failing that, to her half-
< > brother. She would have little or no interest in her property
going
< > to a step-son, especially if she had children of her own who were
her
< > next of kin.

The reversions of the Coleshill fine were discussed in the Montague-
Smith article you claim to have read. As I recall, there was a 4th
reversion involving John Rochford. This is how they know that John
Rochford's mother was Joan Hillary, the 2nd wife of Sir Saer de
Rochford. John Rochford was half-brother to Joan de Clinton, they
having the same mother, Joan Hillary. This explains his placement in
the lineup of reversions.

< Another house of cards may also collapse when faced with a puff of
< accurate treatment of the evidence. Another "ad hominem"
argument....

If you don't have any evidence, then you have built your case on a
very poor foundation. But, if the evidence you use actually shows
something different than what you say, then the house is already in a
state of collapse. Montague-Smith ASSUMED that since the manor of
Coleshill eventually went to Baldwin Montfort that it meant his half-
brother, John de Sutton, died early without issue. Having dealt with
many medieval fines that went askew, I would not make that
assumption .... unless there was additional evidence. And, in this
particular case, the evidence shows that John de Sutton lived to
adulthood, married, and had children. So Montague-Smith's basic
assumption was flawed from the get go. Frankly the editor should have
caught this one.

< And your current hypothesis is also not a complete or accurate
picture
< of the evidence - merely selecting items that support your case.

You can't make a fine say something it doesn't which Montague-Smith
has done. You can't produce a child for Katherine de Stafford, when
none existed. The fact that her father sued for the return of her
marriage money is almost ironclad proof that Katherine died without
issue.

< > < The same article also addresses the lawsuit of Katherine
< > < Stafford's father following her early death and provides an
< > < explanation for it. It may be "inconceivable" for a modern
< > researcher
< > < to understand the basis for this suit, but we've all heard many
< > times
< > < that it's unwise to apply "modern" standards and practices to
< > medieval
< > < events.
<
< > So why are you?
<
< I made no assertion in either direction....I simply cited the
Montague-
< Smith article. Another red herring....

Montague-Smith didn't understand medieval fines, that part is clear.
For you to say "I didn't say it .... he did" is a bit misleading,
John. If you don't believe in Montague-Smith's argument, then you
should say so. However, so far you've supported his argument on all
points, including his flawed interpretation of the Coleshill fine. As
I stated in my earlier post, the Coleshill fine only tells us that
Joan de Clinton had a son named John de Sutton who was alive as of a
certain date. That's it.

< Re-read the Montagu-Smith article....concerning the elder John
< Sutton's connections to Coleshill.

What were John de Sutton's connections to Coleshill? As I recall,
Montague-Smith said the reason that John de Sutton's wife Katherine
had her child at Coleshill was because his mother was living in Dudley
Castle with her new husband. While the latter may be true, John de
Sutton would surely have had access to many other Sutton estates on
which to live. The Suttons were hardly manor poor. Rather, the most
obvious reason that the child was born at Coleshill was because his
mother was Joan de Clinton who was the heiress of Coleshill. Again,
the editor should have caught this one.

< As noted before, your opinion is on record. It would be best if you
< arranged for it to be published in an appropriately refereed
scholarly
< journal, to properly rebut the original article. Perhaps the
editors
< of TG would welcome a submission on the subject--since they
published
< the original article??

You're very naive. If you think editors "welcome" articles which
debunk something one of their friends has written .... well, it ain't
gonna happen, John.
Twice I've overturned published articles right here on the newsgroup.
In both cases, the editor himself came out of hiding and defended the
author's article. In one case he defiantly announced that a
"definitive" follow-up article would appear which would further
strengthen the author's original case .... but the stated article has
never appeared. I'm still waiting for the "definitive" follow-up
article to appear .... just like I'm for you to produce evidence that
Katherine de Sutton had a son named John de Sutton.

So far, you're on the losing end of the argument. Let's see if you
can turn it around. No evidence = IGNORE. Time's a wastin', John.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I found the following line of descent from Sir John Sutton (died
1487), 1st Lord Dudley, down to H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales, on an
online website tonight (http://www.suttonclonard.com/
PrinceCharlesWindsorOfWales.htm). Now that the descent of John
Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley, from Katherine de Stafford has been
demolished, the next available Plantagenet descent available for the
early Sutton family is through Lord Dudley's wife, Elizabeth Berkeley,
who possesses a well documented descent from Richard Fitz Roy, Knt.,
of Chilham, Kent, the illegitimate son of King John.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
SUTTON-DUDLEY TO H.R.H. CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES

1. John VI de Sutton-Dudley, Baron de Sutton 1400-1487
Earl of Clonard & Baron Dudley
& Elizabeth de Berkeley 1400-1478
|
2. John de Sutton-Dudley ca 1427-1503
& Elizabeth Bramshott
|
3. Edmund de Sutton-Dudley 1462-1510
& Elizabeth Grey, Viscountess L'Isle †1525
|
4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1502-1553
&ca 1520 Jane Guldeford
|
5. Robert de Sutton-Dudley, Earl of Leicester 1532-1588
& Lettice Knollys 1539-1634
|
6. Robert Sutton-Tudor (Devereux), Earl of Essex 1566-1601
&1590 Frances Walsingham †1631
|
7. Frances Sutton-Tudor (Devereux) †1674/1679
&1616 William Seymour, Duke of Somerset 1587-1660
|
8. Anne Seymour †1679
&1661 Charles Boyle, Lord Clifford 1639-1694
|
9. Charles Boyle, Earl of Burlington /1674-1704
&1687 Juliana Noel 1672-1750
|
10. Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington 1694-1753
&1721 Dorothy Savile 1699-1758
|
11. Charlotte Boyle, Baroness Clifford 1731-1754
&1748 William Cavendish, Prime Minister of Great Britain 1720-1764
|
12. Dorothy Cavendish 1750-1794
&1766 William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Prime Minister of Great
Britain 1738-1809
|
13. Charles, Lord Cavendish-Bentinck 1780-1826
&1816 Anne Wellesley ca 1788-1875
|
14. Charles Cavendish-Bentinck 1817-1865
&1859 Caroline Burnaby 1832-1918
|
15. Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck 1862-1938
&1881 Claude George Bowes-Lyon, Earl of Strathmore 1855-1944
|
16. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon 1900-2002
&1923 George VI Windsor, King of Great Britain 1895-1952
|
17. Elizabeth II Windsor, Queen of Great Britain 1926-
&1947 Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh 1921-
|
18. Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales 1948-

[wjhonson]

Post by Douglas Richardson
4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1502-1553
&ca 1520 Jane Guldeford
                                |
5. Robert de Sutton-Dudley, Earl of Leicester 1532-1588
&  Lettice Knollys 1539-1634
        |
6. Robert Sutton-Tudor (Devereux), Earl of Essex 1566-1601
&1590 Frances Walsingham †1631
        |
7. Frances Sutton-Tudor (Devereux) †1674/1679
&1616 William Seymour, Duke of Somerset 1587-1660

What is your source for the above belief that the Earl of Essex was a
product of a surreptitious relationship of Robert Dudley with Lettice
Knollys ?

Will Johnson

[John Briggs]

Post by wjhonson

Post by Douglas Richardson
4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1502-1553
&ca 1520 Jane Guldeford
5. Robert de Sutton-Dudley, Earl of Leicester 1532-1588
& Lettice Knollys 1539-1634
6. Robert Sutton-Tudor (Devereux), Earl of Essex 1566-1601
&1590 Frances Walsingham †1631
7. Frances Sutton-Tudor (Devereux) †1674/1679
&1616 William Seymour, Duke of Somerset 1587-1660

What is your source for the above belief that the Earl of Essex was a
product of a surreptitious relationship of Robert Dudley with Lettice
Knollys ?

It's probably no more fictitious than the rest of the pedigree. One wonders
when Richardson thinks the hyphen was invented...

[Douglas Richardson]

<
<It's probably no more fictitious than the rest of the pedigree. One wonders

< when Richardson thinks the hyphen was invented...
< --
< John Briggs


Um ... I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post. I made no corrections or additions. As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records. You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.

DR

[D. Spencer Hines]

Fair Enough.

DSH

Post by Douglas Richardson

<
<It's probably no more fictitious than the rest of the pedigree. One wonders

< when Richardson thinks the hyphen was invented...
< --
< John Briggs
Um ... I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post. I made no corrections or additions. As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records. You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.
DR

[wjhonson]

Um ...   I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post.  I made no corrections or additions.  As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records.  You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.
DR

That is a ridiculous position to take.
The mere idea that you wouldn't even *bother* to check any source at
all and merely copy off some screwball's fantasy descent is absurd.

The idea that Robert Dudley is the father of the Earl of Essex is your
error to own. You didnt' bother to check, you goofed big time, and
you refuse to admit any error. No not you. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY ERR!

DR strikes again.

[John Briggs]

Post by wjhonson

Um ... I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post. I made no corrections or additions. As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records. You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.
DR

That is a ridiculous position to take.
The mere idea that you wouldn't even *bother* to check any source at
all and merely copy off some screwball's fantasy descent is absurd.
The idea that Robert Dudley is the father of the Earl of Essex is your
error to own. You didnt' bother to check, you goofed big time, and
you refuse to admit any error. No not you. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY ERR!
DR strikes again.

He also isn't in any position to throw stones at screwballs.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Angry Twaddle.

DSH

Um ... I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post. I made no corrections or additions. As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records. You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.
DR

That is a ridiculous position to take.
The mere idea that you wouldn't even *bother* to check any source at
all and merely copy off some screwball's fantasy descent is absurd.

The idea that Robert Dudley is the father of the Earl of Essex is your
error to own. You didnt' bother to check, you goofed big time, and
you refuse to admit any error. No not you. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY ERR!

DR strikes again.

[D. Spencer Hines]

I've yet to see any dispositive evidence presented here to the effect that
Joan de Clinton rather than Katherine de Stafford was the mother of John de
Sutton.

Hypotheticals:

If John de Sutton was born on 6 December 1361 and his mother Katherine de
Stafford died before 25 December 1361 -- at 13 years of age -- because of
complications from childbirth, with her first child, would that not be a
quite plausible scenario, in the 14th Century?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 4, 7:45 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:

< If John de Sutton was born on 6 December 1361 and his mother
Katherine de
< Stafford died before 25 December 1361 -- at 13 years of age --
because of
< complications from childbirth, with her first child, would that not
be a
< quite plausible scenario, in the 14th Century?

Dear Spencer ~

That is certainly a plausible scenario in the 14th Century. However,
in this instance, there are several pieces of evidence which suggest
that Katherine de Stafford did not die in childbirth leaving a son and
heir who lived to maturity.

Chief among these pieces of evidence is the 1363 lawsuit of
Katherine's father, Earl Ralph de Stafford, in which the earl sued for
the return of the money which he had advanced for Katherine's
marriage. This lawsuit makes it virtually certain that Katherine's
marriage was unconsummated when she died. This is Wrottesley' and
Martin's interpretation of this lawsuit and I believe they have
correctly interpreted the meaning of this lawsuit. Grazebrook did not
know about the lawsuit, so took no position on it.

The second piece of evidence is the claim to dower to property in
Cheshire which which was made in 1370 by John de Sutton's surviving
wife, Joan de Clinton. The property in question had been earlier
settled on John de Sutton and Katherine de Stafford and their issue.
In 1370, both John de Sutton and Katherine de Stafford were dead, and,
if they had issue, this property should have gone to them, and, if I
understand such settlements, it would not be subject to a claim of
dower by John de Sutton's second wife, Joan de Clinton. However, if
Katherine de Stafford had no issue, then the property would have
return to John de Sutton to hold in his own right in his lifetime. In
that case, then Joan de Clinton would have been able to claim dower.

However, this is rather techincal point. As such, I'd like to review
other examples further to make sure that Joan de Clinton had no claim
to dower to the property settled on John and Katherine and their
issue, assuming Katherine had surviving issue then living.

So the question is: Can a second surviving wife claim dower in
property settled on her husband and his first wife and the issue of
the first marriage, if in fact the first marriage then had surviving
issue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



.

[D. Spencer Hines]

I have yet to see any dispositive evidence that Katherine de Stafford was
NOT the mother of John de Sutton.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Spencer ~

I might suggest that you read the interesting article, "Contexts of
Marriage in Medieval England: Evidence from the King's Court circa
1300," by Robert C. Palmer, published in Speculum, 59(1) (1984):
42-67. It should answer your questions, both as to the 1363 lawsuit
filed by Earl Ralph de Stafford, and the 1370 claim to dower in Sutton
family property by Joan de Clinton, surviving wife of John de Sutton.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 5, 6:40 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
< I have yet to see any dispositive evidence that Katherine de
Stafford was
< NOT the mother of John de Sutton.
<
< DSH
<
< Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Thank you kindly.

I've made a note of that article although I can't get it here.

Still...

I think it should be possible to make the argument AGAINST Katherine de
Stafford and FOR Joan de Clinton as the mother in a couple of well-written,
finely-reasoned paragraphs IF the evidence is truly dispositive.

FAILING that, I'm unconvinced and insist on seeing more convincing evidence
for Katherine or Joan.

Currently, the judgment is the Scottish Verdict of...

UNPROVEN.

Me ke aloha pumehana.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Spencer ~
I might suggest that you read the interesting article, "Contexts of
Marriage in Medieval England: Evidence from the King's Court circa
42-67. It should answer your questions, both as to the 1363 lawsuit
filed by Earl Ralph de Stafford, and the 1370 claim to dower in Sutton
family property by Joan de Clinton, surviving wife of John de Sutton.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< I have yet to see any dispositive evidence that Katherine de
< Stafford was NOT the mother of John de Sutton.
<
< DSH
<
< Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Peter Stewart]

Post by a***@mindspring.com
Dear Douglas,
Thank you kindly.
I've made a note of that article although I can't get it here.

But of course you can get this article in Hawaii, very easily - for
$15.00 via

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-7134(198401)59%3A1%3C42%3ACOMIME%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

Be sure to let us know how dispositive (or otherwise) you find the
evidence or argument in it, since Richardson so kindly can't or won't.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

I could mail the article to Spencer but I don't have his address.

No Problem.

Please send it to:

D. Spencer Hines
347 Ilimalia Loop
Kailua, HI 96734-1852

I look forward to reading it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

But I'm not sure either that he would find that it provides the desired
evidence. Palmer discusses many cases, but not that involving John de
Sutton. Some of the cases involve children, but the circumstances are
different from the scenario envisioned by Douglas.

GOOD!

That was precisely my concern as well -- that the article may well not be
definitive and dispositive to THIS CASE. -- DSH

To help Spencer decide whether he should invest $15, I quote Palmer's
"The main purpose of this paper has been to think through the
circumstances attendant upon the making and unmaking of marriages. Not
all of these circumstances had to do with land, money, or goods.
Medefeld v. Sandcroft will serve, to some extent, to round out the
picture of the kind of contribution that the materials which are
preserved in the records of the king's court can make. The case came
up in 1286. It seems that Geoffrey Sandcroft and Mary de Medefeld
pledged faith to each other, and Mary thereafter was rather more than
reluctant to solemnize the arrangement. Sandcroft therefore sued her
before the ecclesiastical ordinary of the place to prove her as his
wife, and he won. By judgment he thus married her as his wife. But
Mary immediately appealed to the court of Arches. Both the parish
priest and Sandcroft thought she was being unreasonable: a firm hand
might resolve the matter better than litigation. The priest loaned
Sandcroft his horse; the prospective husband and two of his friends
then proceeded to kidnap Mary. They went to her house, and found her
in a forest near her courtyard. Mary would not go quietly. She wrapped
herself around a hawthorn tree, so that she was injured when they
forcibly dragged her away. She then refused to ride, so they put her
across the back of the priest's horse; she raised the hue and cry all
the way to Sandcroft's brother's home -since they did not go to
Sandcroft's own home, it is quite conceivable that he was not yet
established independently. They had a room prepared there, complete
with a bed; Sandcroft and Mary were closed up alone in the room
together for five days. But, the jury reported, every time he laid
hands on her, she screamed; Sandcroft's brother finally advised him to
desist. Becoming somewhat worried by her intransigence, they insisted
she make out a deed surrendering her right to implead them for their
misconduct. Only then did they allow her to go.
"Such a deed, however, thus made while imprisoned, never barred anyone
from suing; Mary sued, alleging forcible taking and imprisonment and
asking for £100 in damages. The jury replied as above, stating
expressly that she had not been violated. The court awarded her her
full claim of £100, what must have been a staggering sum for the
defendants. Nevertheless, if Sandcroft won when Mary's appeal
concerning the marriage itself was decided finally in ecclesiastical
court, he would not have been much damaged: once she was confirmed as
his wife, he would be paying the money to himself. But if Mary won her
appeal, the defendants would be ruined. Sandcroft had at least known
enough not to endanger his life by committing rape. This kind of
judgment was clear warning that the king's court would not tolerate
the heavy-handed wisdom approved by the local priest, at least when
the woman was so vehement: during an appeal against a judgment
declaring her to be married, a woman still retained her rights.
"Such cases yield more than entertaining stories. They show the
context of a case in ecclesiastical court which, either because the
events would have been considered tangential or because they took
place after the judgment in ecclesiastical court, would not appear in
the record of the case there. These cases also reveal the legal
structures around which people had to pattern their actions if their
actions were to be effective. Of course, a poorly performed grant
could easily survive as long as no one chose to challenge it; many
people would have chosen to honor what they knew to have been the
wishes of their relatives. But such sacrificial actions on the part of
one's descendants could not be counted on. Even very common people,
people who would seem in many ways indistinguishable from their
villein neighbors, altered their practices to take account of the
strange rules that were growing up in the common law. It is in the
determination of that social context of marriage and marriage
litigation and of the effect of the law on social practices that these
cases find their significance."
cited from
Contexts of Marriage in Medieval England: Evidence from the King's
Court circa 1300
Robert C. Palmer
Speculum, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Jan., 1984), pp. 42-67.
Tish

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following weblink shows that Lady Joan Gryffyn was granted a
license for her oratory at Stockton, Warwickshire on 12 November 1373
by Robert de Stretton, Bishop of Lichfield.

http://books.google.com/books?id=deoGAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA63&dq=%22Joanna+Gryffyn%22

This lady was none other than Joan de Clinton, widow successively of
Sir John de Montfort (living 1361), Sir John de Sutton (died 1369/70),
and Sir Henry ap Griffith (died 1372). Lady Joan evidently held this
manor in dower of her third marriage to Sir Henry ap Griffith. The
manor was held by Sir Henry's family as indicated by VCH Warwick,
volume 6, sub Stockton:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57134&strquery=Stockton

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Digging a little deeper, it appears that the Lady Joan Gryffyn who was
granted the license for an oratory at Stockton, Warwickshire in 1372
was actually Sir Henry ap Griffith's widowed mother, Joan de
Somerville, rather than his own widow, Joan de Clinton.

I have no evidence that Sir Henry ap Griffith as a younger son ever
held the manor of Stockton, Staffordshire. As such, in 1372 the manor
would likely have been held by his widowed mother, Joan de Somerville,
who was the heiress of this manor. Furthermore, I show that Joan de
Somerville, widow of Sir Rhys ap Griffith, actually died at Stockton,
Warwickshire on 8 October 1376 [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64 (List of deaths: "A° 1 R. 2. Obitus
supradictæ Johannæ vxoris predicta Resi filiæ et heredis antedictæ
Philippi Someruile militis 8° die Octobris A° 1376 quæ obijt apud
Stokton sed vbi sepelitur nescio.").

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The following weblink shows that Lady Joan Gryffyn was granted a
license for her oratory at Stockton, Warwickshire on 12 November 1373
by Robert de Stretton, Bishop of Lichfield.
http://books.google.com/books?id=deoGAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA63&dq=%22Joann...
This lady was none other than Joan de Clinton, widow successively of
Sir John de Montfort (living 1361), Sir John de Sutton (died 1369/70),
and Sir Henry ap Griffith (died 1372). Lady Joan evidently held this
manor in dower of her third marriage to Sir Henry ap Griffith. The
manor was held by Sir Henry's family as indicated by VCH Warwick,
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57134&strquery=St...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

As for further evidence that John de Sutton the elder (died 1389/70)
had no issue by his first wife, Katherine de Stafford (died 1361), I
should point out that he and his wife, Katherine, had the manors of
Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire settled on them in June 1361.
Katherine de Stafford died soon afterwards before Christmas 1361. I
next find that John de Sutton was subsequently pardoned in 1367 for
alienating three parts of the manor of Malpas, Cheshire [Reference:
Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 36 (1875): 321].

Had John de Sutton's marriage to Katherine de Stafford produced
surviving issue, the alienation in 1367 would be most irregular, as
the manor of Malpas was surely settled on him and Katherine, and
presumably on their issue. If, however, John de Sutton had no issue
by Katherine de Stafford, there would be nothing irregular about his
alienating this property.

Please see the following weblink for the record of John de Sutton's
alienation of Malpas, Cheshire:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148&dq=%22William+de+Crophull%22#PRA1-PA321,M1

John de Sutton must have retained a moeity share of the 4th part of
the manor of Malpas, Cheshire, as I find that in 1370 his widow, Joan
de Clinton, and her 3rd husband, Sir Henry ap Griffith, sued Thomas de
Budenhale, parson of Routhesthorn, for dower in a moiety of a fourth
part of the manor of Malpas, Cheshire [see Grazebrook Barons of Dudley
1 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 9(2)) (1888): 53]. Again, it would be quite
odd for John de Sutton's second wife, Joan, to claim dower in property
that had been previously settled on John and his 1st wife, Katherine
de Stafford, unless the first wife, Katherine, had died without issue.

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA59&dq=%22moiety+of+a+fourth+part+of+the+manor+of+Malpas%22

As for the other moiety share of Malpas, Cheshire not held by the
Sutton family, I find that in 1396 William son of William de Brereton
obtained a writ of livery as heir of Isabel, wife of John de Delves.
The record indicates that Isabel de Delves, Thomas de Budenhale, and
Henry de Coton, chaplains formerly held a fourth part of the manor of
Malpas, Cheshire, which property presumably passed to William de
Brereton in 1396 [Reference: Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 36
(1875): 53].

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&dq=%22Thomas+de+Budenhale%22

Comments are welcome, indeed invited. When replying, please cite your
sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise ..... you
know the drill.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Yes, I was correct. The manors of Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire were
settled in June 1361 on John de Sutton and his wife, Katherine de
Stafford ... "to hold to them, and the heirs of their body, and, them
failing, to the right heirs of the said John."

See the following weblinks for a record of this settlement:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&dq=%22Thomas+de+Budenhale%22#PRA1-PA441,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&dq=%22Thomas+de+Budenhale%22#PRA1-PA442,M1

This is a good example, by the way, of the remainder clause "to the
right heirs" which is commonly found in such settlements and fines.

Also, John de Sutton was pardoned a fine of £200 by Edward, Prince of
Wales in 1367 for alienating three parts of the manor of Malpas,
Cheshire.

See the following weblink for that record:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&dq=%22Thomas+de+Budenhale%22#PRA1-PA459,M1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Douglas,

So, this Joan de Clinton...

Does she have a Royal or Noble descent?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Spencer ~

For Joan de Clinton's paternal line, see Brydges, Collins' Peerage of
England 2 (1812): 181-216 (sub Duke of Newcastle).

For her mother's Hillary ancestry, see Willmore, Hist. of Walsall &
its Neighbourhood (1887): 142-143, 243-245, 246 (Hillary pedigree).

Both of these works are available online through Google Books.

For Joan de Clinton's half-brother, Sir John Rochford, see Roskell,
House of Commons 1386-1421 4 (1992): 219-221.

As far as I know, Joan de Clinton possesses no royal ancestry. If you
find any, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thanks, Douglas.

Since Katherine de Stafford is reportedly a descendant of King Edward I we
shall certainly have to find a Royal Descent for Joan de Clinton too,
n'est-ce pas? <g>

DSH

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Spencer ~
For Joan de Clinton's paternal line, see Brydges, Collins' Peerage of
England 2 (1812): 181-216 (sub Duke of Newcastle).
For her mother's Hillary ancestry, see Willmore, Hist. of Walsall &
its Neighbourhood (1887): 142-143, 243-245, 246 (Hillary pedigree).
Both of these works are available online through Google Books.
For Joan de Clinton's half-brother, Sir John Rochford, see Roskell,
House of Commons 1386-1421 4 (1992): 219-221.
As far as I know, Joan de Clinton possesses no royal ancestry. If you
find any, please let me know.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[CE Wood]

I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information

Post by Douglas Richardson
Please see the following weblink for the record of John de Sutton's
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148&dq=%22Will...

"(he) was twenty-one years of age...6th December, 1382...."
"(he) was aged one and a half years...24th June, 1362...."
"John was born...in the 34th year of Edward III., 1360...."

There are two statements that say John was born in 1360, when
Katherine de Stafford was still alive. The first statement is also
true inasmuch as he was twenty-one years of age in 1382, whether he
was born in 1360 or 1361.

So, if these testimonies say he was born in 1360, his mother would
have been Katherine, who died in December 1361. I am confused.

CE Wood

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
As for further evidence that John de Sutton the elder (died 1389/70)
had no issue by his first wife, Katherine de Stafford (died 1361), I
should point out that he and his wife, Katherine, had the manors of
Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire settled on them in June 1361.
Katherine de Stafford died soon afterwards before Christmas 1361. I
next find that John de Sutton was subsequently pardoned in 1367 for
Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 36 (1875): 321].
Had John de Sutton's marriage to Katherine de Stafford produced
surviving issue, the alienation in 1367 would be most irregular, as
the manor of Malpas was surely settled on him and Katherine, and
presumably on their issue. If, however, John de Sutton had no issue
by Katherine de Stafford, there would be nothing irregular about his
alienating this property.
Please see the following weblink for the record of John de Sutton's
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148&dq=%22Will...
John de Sutton must have retained a moeity share of the 4th part of
the manor of Malpas, Cheshire, as I find that in 1370 his widow, Joan
de Clinton, and her 3rd husband, Sir Henry ap Griffith, sued Thomas de
Budenhale, parson of Routhesthorn, for dower in a moiety of a fourth
part of the manor of Malpas, Cheshire [see Grazebrook Barons of Dudley
1 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 9(2)) (1888): 53]. Again, it would be quite
odd for John de Sutton's second wife, Joan, to claim dower in property
that had been previously settled on John and his 1st wife, Katherine
de Stafford, unless the first wife, Katherine, had died without issue.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA59&dq=%22moiet...
As for the other moiety share of Malpas, Cheshire not held by the
Sutton family, I find that in 1396 William son of William de Brereton
obtained a writ of livery as heir of Isabel, wife of John de Delves.
The record indicates that Isabel de Delves, Thomas de Budenhale, and
Henry de Coton, chaplains formerly held a fourth part of the manor of
Malpas, Cheshire, which property presumably passed to William de
Brereton in 1396 [Reference: Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 36
(1875): 53].
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&dq=%22Thoma...
Comments are welcome, indeed invited. When replying, please cite your
sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise ..... you
know the drill.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 2, 4:56 pm, CE Wood <***@msn.com> wrote:
< I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information
< given on the page in your link:
<
< > Please see the following weblink for the record of John de
Sutton's
< > alienation of Malpas, Cheshire:
< >http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148&dq=
%22Will...

The weblink that you have referenced has none of the information that
you say is there.

I suspect you must mean the following weblink instead, which is to a
completely different source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA61&dq=next+after+Middle+Plague

If you read this text carefully, you'll see that one of the jurors for
John de Sutton's proof of age stated that John de Sutton was born on
the feast of St. Nicholas next AFTER the Middle Plague. In a
footnote, Mr. Grazebrook indicates that the "the second great plague"
ran from August 1361 to May 1362. Hence, according to the testimony
of this one juror, John de Sutton was born 6 December 1362, not in
1360, or 1361.

And, a 1362 birthdate would mean that John de Sutton was born AFTER
Katherine de Stafford's death.

Not surprisingly, the implication of Grazebrook's dating of the Middle
Plague was overlooked by Patrick Montague-Smith in his article on the
Sutton family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[CE Wood]

My apologies for citing the wrong weblink, and thank you for knowing
the correct one.

Notwithstanding what the footnote says, the main text says "34 Edward
III," which was from 25 January 1360 to 24 January 1361, placing the
Feast "next after" in 1361, not 1362.

The text also says "1360, at which time Edward the late King, and
Edward Prince of Wales...returned with their army from France." That
was after the Treaty of Brétigny, which was signed 8 May 1360.

Both place the Feast "next after" at 1361.

CE Wood

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information
<
< > Please see the following weblink for the record of John de
Sutton's
< >http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA148&dq=
%22Will...
The weblink that you have referenced has none of the information that
you say is there.
I suspect you must mean the following weblink instead, which is to a
http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA61&dq=next+aft...
If you read this text carefully, you'll see that one of the jurors for
John de Sutton's proof of age stated that John de Sutton was born on
the feast of St. Nicholas next AFTER the Middle Plague. In a
footnote, Mr. Grazebrook indicates that the "the second great plague"
ran from August 1361 to May 1362. Hence, according to the testimony
of this one juror, John de Sutton was born 6 December 1362, not in
1360, or 1361.
And, a 1362 birthdate would mean that John de Sutton was born AFTER
Katherine de Stafford's death.
Not surprisingly, the implication of Grazebrook's dating of the Middle
Plague was overlooked by Patrick Montague-Smith in his article on the
Sutton family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

All newsgroup posters should know that ages given in medieval proofs
of age and in inquisitions post mortem are subject to gross error.
Although they are often quite accurate, they are not at all like a
modern birth certificate, and should not be taken as such.

If the person said that John de Sutton was born in December NEXT AFTER
the Middle Plague, he appears to have meant December 1362, which is
the nearest December date AFTER the plague. Grazebrook establish this
fact years ago. Yet it was overlooked by at least three newsgroup
posters this week, all of whom had access to the Grazebrook article.

So we have three birth years for John de Sutton in his so called Proof
of Age: 1360, 1361, and 1362. I say take your pick, or, if you
prefer, throw a dart. Either way the Proof of Age is not the best
piece of evidence, except perhaps for revealing that John de Sutton
was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, which was the chief estate of
Joan de Clinton.

Whatever the case, Inconsistencies in medieval records are a simple
fact of medieval life. They are what they are. That is why it is
especially important to look at the whole picture, instead of one
little piece.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hypotheticals:

If John de Sutton was born on 6 December 1361 and his mother Katherine de
Stafford died before 25 December 1361 -- at 13 years of age -- because of
complications from childbirth, with her first child, would that not be a
quite plausible scenario, in the 14th Century?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f73eea5e-1633-48e7-9b4c-

Post by Douglas Richardson
So we have three birth years for John de Sutton in his so called Proof
of Age: 1360, 1361, and 1362. I say take your pick, or, if you
prefer, throw a dart. Either way the Proof of Age is not the best
piece of evidence, except perhaps for revealing that John de Sutton
was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, which was the chief estate of
Joan de Clinton.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Douglas, what is Joan de Clinton's Clinton ascent beyond her father?

Thank you.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:871ff485-6f06-4a87-b5c7-***@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)

Post by Douglas Richardson
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).

[Leticia Cluff]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:41:54 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Douglas, what is Joan de Clinton's Clinton ascent beyond her father?
Thank you.
DSH
Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)

Post by Douglas Richardson
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).

For more details see the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654

Also Burke's Peerage p. 602.

Tish