Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 jan 2006 00:35:36

What do folks make of the following statement on Stirnet, now that
we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof?

[discussing the wife of Sir John Bayntun (c. 1407-c. 1447) of Faulston,
Wilts.] "Visitation shows John's wife as Jane Dandeley but with
connections which indicate confusion with the Dudley family. The family
web site and BE1883 confirm her as ... Joan Dudley (dau of Sir Robert
Dudley of Clopton)."

http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... yntun1.htm

This is possibly supported by an ancient (1835) article in _The
Gentleman's Mag_ ...

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... w6X4tmqi9U

John Higgins

Re: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)

Legg inn av John Higgins » 18 jan 2006 06:46:02

John Brandon's note, along with the website references provided, highlights
an interesting issue in the Baynton ancestry - a purported Dudley connection
to the Bayntons which could be said to explain the fact that John Baynton
(d. 1516) was heir to the property (but not the title) of Richard Beauchamp,
Lord St. Amand (d. 1508). But according to CP and other sources, there is
another explanation for John Baynton being the heir - which does not involve
a Dudley connection. I think this casts doubt on the validity of the
supposed Dudley connection.

The Baynton descent on the Stirnet site seems to be a conflation of a 1623
visitation pedigree (from HSP 105-6:5-8) and bits and pieces from Burke's
Extinct Peerage (certainly not the best source!). It was apparently
supplemented or confirmed by a Baynton family-history website which is no
longer accessible.

A more modern (and well-documented) study of the Baynton descent was
published in 1963 by Walter Goodwin Davis in his "The Ancestry of Abel
Lunt". He gives the following sequence for the early Baynton descent:

Thomas de Baynton (d. 28 May 1358); m. Margaret de Grimstede (d. July 1340)

Nicholas de Baynton (b. ca. 1334, IPMs 7 and 8 Feb 1411); m. Joan
d'Aundeley [or Daundeley], of a Hampshire family, from whom the manors of
Chilton Candover and Daundeleswyck were transferred to Nicholas

Nicholas de Baynton (prob. b. ca. 1381, d. 1421); m. 1400 (her 1st) Joan,
dau. of Sir John de la Roche and Willelma de la Mere [Joan's sister
Elizabeth was the paternal grandmother of Richard Beauchamp, Lord St. Amand,
mentioned above - and below]

Sir John Baynton (d. 20 June 1465); m. (1) Joan Echingham; m. (2) Katherine
Payne. {Davis says that "there is so far no sound documentary evidence
found" that establishes that Joan, rather than Katherine, was the mother of
Sir John's heir]

Sir Robert Baynton (attainted after the battle of Tewkesbury 1471; prob. d.
shortly thereafter, and "before 6 Oct 12 Edward IV" [1472]); m. Elizabeth
Haute

Sir John Baynton (d. 31 Oct 1516) - the heir in 1511 to the property of
Richard Beauchamp, Lord St. Amand

[end of descent - more details for the last three generations in
Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry"]

According to both Davis and CP 11:303, the Beauchamp/St. Amand inheritance
came to the 2nd Sir John Baynton via his Roche great-grandmother, sister of
the grandmother of Lord St. Amand (who was his second cousin once removed -
not cousin as stated in Richardson's RPA). Both CP and Davis cite
contemporary documents to support this particular connection, and Davis
quotes the documents at length.

The supposed Dudley connection appears to arise from a misreading of the
visitation pedigree, which is likely in error itself. I won't repeat the
entire visitation pedigree, but the key element (replicated in Stirnet's
pedigree) is the insertion of an additional generation between the
Baynton/Roche marriage and the Baynton/Echingham marriage, showing a John
Baynton married to Joan, dau. of Richard Dandeley [sic]. But this Richard
has the wife (Elizabeth Beauchamp) usually attributed to Richard DUDLEY of
Clopton - hence the substitution in current web pedigrees.

Based on the sketchy information that appears to be known on the family of
Dudley of Clopton, their connection to Beauchamp of St. Amand is via
Elizabeth who is shown as an aunt of Lord St. Amand. If this connection is
correct, Sir John Baynton the heir was a first cousin twice removed rather
than a second cousin once removed (through the Roche connection). The fact
that this Dudley connection is not apparently mentioned in the primary
sources at the time of the disposition of St. Amand inheritance suggests to
me that it is possibly invalid - and was perhaps a later invention. But I
would like to see further information on this if anyone can
help....especially as to the family of Dudley of Clopton.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)


What do folks make of the following statement on Stirnet, now that
we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof?

[discussing the wife of Sir John Bayntun (c. 1407-c. 1447) of Faulston,
Wilts.] "Visitation shows John's wife as Jane Dandeley but with
connections which indicate confusion with the Dudley family. The family
web site and BE1883 confirm her as ... Joan Dudley (dau of Sir Robert
Dudley of Clopton)."

http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... yntun1.htm

This is possibly supported by an ancient (1835) article in _The
Gentleman's Mag_ ...


http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... zrzWAAB8eM

C&pg=PA592&lpg=PA592&dq=dudley+baynton&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3F
lr%3D%26q%3Ddudley%2Bbaynton&sig=HdS521TN1KDSOlCR_w6X4tmqi9U
>

John Brandon

Re: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 jan 2006 16:01:39

I don't have anything particular to add to this, but will just point
out another wife for Robert Gye (from my posting of last year) --

Lists and Indexes, vol. 7:

p. 328

--Quycke, Joan, widow.
--Gye, Robert.
--Poughill, mill, &c. in (Devon).

--Quycke, Joan, widow.
--Quycke, Richard.
--Poughill, mill, &c. in (Devon).

--Quycke, Joan, widow, and Richard.
--Gye, Robert, and Joan his wife.
--Poughill, mill, &c. in (Devon).

--Quycke, Richard.
--Quycke, Joan, widow.
--Poughill, mill, &c. in (Devon).

Robert Gye's second wife--the mother of Mary Gye Maverick--was Grace
Dowrish. I've seen it written that Robert and Grace were married
_circa_ 1555. But if these suits are correctly dated (i.e., fall in
the period 1558-79), Robert Gye must still have been married to his
first wife, Joan, as late as 1558. Was Joan a relation of the Quyckes?

(Doug might want to include this in future volumes of his series ...)

John Higgins

Re: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 jan 2006 00:30:02

A further note or two on the relationships of Joan Dudley [or Daundeley}
said to be married to John Baynton:

Joan is said, on the Stirnet site and by at least one of its sources, to be
daughter of Sir Richard Dudley of Clopton and his wife Elizabeth Beauchamp.
Elizabeth in turn is said to be daughter of Sir Walter Beauchamp and his
wife Elizabeth Roche [or Roches] and thus sister to William Beauchamp, [jure
uxoris] Lord St. Amand, and Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury.

Sir Walter Beauchamp and his elder brother Sir William Beauchamp of Powick
are both covered in RPA and MCA, and both have lengthy biographies in
Roskell's History of Parliament. RPA/MCA say that Sir Walter had only two
sons (no daughters), but at least two of the sources cited in RPA/MCA say
that Sir Walter had 1 daughter, and one of the sources (the Wiltshire
visitation pedigree) calls her Elizabeth. There is unfortunately no
explanation given in RPA/MCA for the selective inclusion or omission of
information from its cited sources. However, there is at least the
implication here that Elizabeth Beauchamp cannot be supported.

As to Elizabeth's husband Sir Richard Dudley of Clopton, neither he nor his
wife appear in a pedigree of that family in the 1564 visitation of
Northamptonshire [1887 ed. by W. C. Metcalfe], which presents a somewhat
different pedigree for that family than is shown in Stirnet. In particular
Stirnet appears to have added the generation of Sir Richard and his
daughter, which does not appear in the visitation pedigree. While a
omission in a visitation pedigree is hardly unusual, it should probably be
at least a warning that further research is needed.

The fact that both the Beauchamp and the Dudley connections appear to lack
support suggests that the later connection of Joan Dudley to the Baynton
family is probably also doubtful - or just a case of confusion with Joan
Daundeley.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)


John Brandon's note, along with the website references provided,
highlights
an interesting issue in the Baynton ancestry - a purported Dudley
connection
to the Bayntons which could be said to explain the fact that John Baynton
(d. 1516) was heir to the property (but not the title) of Richard
Beauchamp,
Lord St. Amand (d. 1508). But according to CP and other sources, there is
another explanation for John Baynton being the heir - which does not
involve
a Dudley connection. I think this casts doubt on the validity of the
supposed Dudley connection.

The Baynton descent on the Stirnet site seems to be a conflation of a 1623
visitation pedigree (from HSP 105-6:5-8) and bits and pieces from Burke's
Extinct Peerage (certainly not the best source!). It was apparently
supplemented or confirmed by a Baynton family-history website which is no
longer accessible.

A more modern (and well-documented) study of the Baynton descent was
published in 1963 by Walter Goodwin Davis in his "The Ancestry of Abel
Lunt". He gives the following sequence for the early Baynton descent:

Thomas de Baynton (d. 28 May 1358); m. Margaret de Grimstede (d. July
1340)

Nicholas de Baynton (b. ca. 1334, IPMs 7 and 8 Feb 1411); m. Joan
d'Aundeley [or Daundeley], of a Hampshire family, from whom the manors of
Chilton Candover and Daundeleswyck were transferred to Nicholas

Nicholas de Baynton (prob. b. ca. 1381, d. 1421); m. 1400 (her 1st) Joan,
dau. of Sir John de la Roche and Willelma de la Mere [Joan's sister
Elizabeth was the paternal grandmother of Richard Beauchamp, Lord St.
Amand,
mentioned above - and below]

Sir John Baynton (d. 20 June 1465); m. (1) Joan Echingham; m. (2)
Katherine
Payne. {Davis says that "there is so far no sound documentary evidence
found" that establishes that Joan, rather than Katherine, was the mother
of
Sir John's heir]

Sir Robert Baynton (attainted after the battle of Tewkesbury 1471; prob.
d.
shortly thereafter, and "before 6 Oct 12 Edward IV" [1472]); m. Elizabeth
Haute

Sir John Baynton (d. 31 Oct 1516) - the heir in 1511 to the property of
Richard Beauchamp, Lord St. Amand

[end of descent - more details for the last three generations in
Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry"]

According to both Davis and CP 11:303, the Beauchamp/St. Amand inheritance
came to the 2nd Sir John Baynton via his Roche great-grandmother, sister
of
the grandmother of Lord St. Amand (who was his second cousin once
removed -
not cousin as stated in Richardson's RPA). Both CP and Davis cite
contemporary documents to support this particular connection, and Davis
quotes the documents at length.

The supposed Dudley connection appears to arise from a misreading of the
visitation pedigree, which is likely in error itself. I won't repeat the
entire visitation pedigree, but the key element (replicated in Stirnet's
pedigree) is the insertion of an additional generation between the
Baynton/Roche marriage and the Baynton/Echingham marriage, showing a John
Baynton married to Joan, dau. of Richard Dandeley [sic]. But this Richard
has the wife (Elizabeth Beauchamp) usually attributed to Richard DUDLEY of
Clopton - hence the substitution in current web pedigrees.

Based on the sketchy information that appears to be known on the family of
Dudley of Clopton, their connection to Beauchamp of St. Amand is via
Elizabeth who is shown as an aunt of Lord St. Amand. If this connection
is
correct, Sir John Baynton the heir was a first cousin twice removed rather
than a second cousin once removed (through the Roche connection). The
fact
that this Dudley connection is not apparently mentioned in the primary
sources at the time of the disposition of St. Amand inheritance suggests
to
me that it is possibly invalid - and was perhaps a later invention. But I
would like to see further information on this if anyone can
help....especially as to the family of Dudley of Clopton.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Sir John Bayntun's wife, Joan Dudley (? Dandeley)


What do folks make of the following statement on Stirnet, now that
we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof?

[discussing the wife of Sir John Bayntun (c. 1407-c. 1447) of Faulston,
Wilts.] "Visitation shows John's wife as Jane Dandeley but with
connections which indicate confusion with the Dudley family. The family
web site and BE1883 confirm her as ... Joan Dudley (dau of Sir Robert
Dudley of Clopton)."

http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... yntun1.htm

This is possibly supported by an ancient (1835) article in _The
Gentleman's Mag_ ...



http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... zrzWAAB8eM

C&pg=PA592&lpg=PA592&dq=dudley+baynton&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3F
lr%3D%26q%3Ddudley%2Bbaynton&sig=HdS521TN1KDSOlCR_w6X4tmqi9U


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»