RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Louise Staley

RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 09 jun 2006 02:36:03

RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

_BIBLIOGRAPHY_
Bannerman, W. Bruce, ed. /The Visitation of Sussex 1530, 1633-4/. Vol.
53, /Visitations Series/. London: The Harleian Society, 1905.

Cooper, William Durant. "The Families of Braose of Chesworth, and Hoo."
/Sussex Archaeological Collections/ 8 (1856): 97-131.

Davidson-Houston, C.E.D. "Monumental Brasses, Part II." /Sussex
Archaeological Collections/ 77 (1936): 130-187.

Gibbs, Vicary, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland,
Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant/. 13
in 14 vols. Vol. 2. London: St. Catherine Press, 1912.

———, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great
Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant/. 13 in 14
vols. Vol. 6. London: St. Catherine Press, 1926.

Greenfield, B.W. "Honywood Evidences, Part III: Sir Edward Arundel of
Aynho, Co. Northampton, Knt." /Topographer and Genealogist/ 2 (1853):
312-336.

———. "Corrections and Additions to Notices of Sir Edward Arundel, Knt."
/Topographer and Genealogist/ 3 (1858): 254-255.

Hall, Spencer. /Echyngham of Echyngham/. London: George Barclay, 1850.

———. "Notices of Sepulchral Memorials at Etchingham, Sussex, and of the
Church at that Place." /Archaeological Journal/ 7 (1850): 265-273.

Malden, Henry Elliot, ed. /The Victoria History of the County of
Surrey/. 4 vols. Vol. 4, /Victoria History of the Counties of England/.
London: Dawsons for the University of London, Institute of Historical
Research, 1912.

Philipott, John. "Finch Genealogy." /Miscelanea Genealogica et
Heraldica/ 1st Series 2 (1876): 325-337.

Suckling, F. H. "Some Notes on Barsham Juxta Eccles, Co. Suffolk." The
Genealogist n.s. 21 (1905): 124-142, 243-250.

Hal Bradley

RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 11 jun 2006 00:12:01

Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex, ... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William, but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

_BIBLIOGRAPHY_
Bannerman, W. Bruce, ed. /The Visitation of Sussex 1530, 1633-4/. Vol.
53, /Visitations Series/. London: The Harleian Society, 1905.

Cooper, William Durant. "The Families of Braose of Chesworth,
and Hoo."
/Sussex Archaeological Collections/ 8 (1856): 97-131.

Davidson-Houston, C.E.D. "Monumental Brasses, Part II." /Sussex
Archaeological Collections/ 77 (1936): 130-187.

Gibbs, Vicary, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England,
Scotland, Ireland,
Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or
Dormant/. 13
in 14 vols. Vol. 2. London: St. Catherine Press, 1912.

———, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great
Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or
Dormant/. 13 in 14
vols. Vol. 6. London: St. Catherine Press, 1926.

Greenfield, B.W. "Honywood Evidences, Part III: Sir Edward Arundel of
Aynho, Co. Northampton, Knt." /Topographer and Genealogist/ 2 (1853):
312-336.

———. "Corrections and Additions to Notices of Sir Edward
Arundel, Knt."
/Topographer and Genealogist/ 3 (1858): 254-255.

Hall, Spencer. /Echyngham of Echyngham/. London: George Barclay, 1850.

———. "Notices of Sepulchral Memorials at Etchingham, Sussex,
and of the
Church at that Place." /Archaeological Journal/ 7 (1850): 265-273.

Malden, Henry Elliot, ed. /The Victoria History of the County of
Surrey/. 4 vols. Vol. 4, /Victoria History of the Counties of
England/.
London: Dawsons for the University of London, Institute of Historical
Research, 1912.

Philipott, John. "Finch Genealogy." /Miscelanea Genealogica et
Heraldica/ 1st Series 2 (1876): 325-337.

Suckling, F. H. "Some Notes on Barsham Juxta Eccles, Co. Suffolk." The
Genealogist n.s. 21 (1905): 124-142, 243-250.

Hal Bradley

RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 11 jun 2006 00:45:03

Louise,

Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."

Hal Bradley


-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

snip

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 11 jun 2006 01:08:56

Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex, ... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William, but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 11 jun 2006 01:55:08

Dear Hal,

Thank-you for this. I am also in the process of collecting the
references cited in RPA for the Baynton 12. line where the Davis
reference is cited and planned to post further once all the references
for Echingham 11 are collected. However, since you raise this line, I
can report there are 9 references cited for Baynton 12. of which I have
seen seven and you have added an eighth. *NONE* of the seven references
say that Joan Arundel was the mother of the wife of John Baynton and the
eighth is highly qualified and relying on a visitation which does not
mention Joan Arundel either.

The Visitation of Wiltshire, in the Baynton pedigree does say that John
Baynton married "Jana filia Willi Ichingham mil." however, no wife of
"Willi Ichingham" is mentioned and this is the source for the highly
qualified statement in Davis (1963).

I note that Sir William Echingham and Joan Arundel did have a daughter
named Joan who was married to John Rykhill of Eslington and who is
attested as the daughter of Joan in A2A RYE 1462/2, page 280, a primary
source. Despite extensive searching by many people for any references
connected to Echingham, nobody has ever turned up a primary source which
links Baynton and Echingham.

Louise

_REFERENCES_
Crowley, D. A., ed. A History of Wiltshire. 17 vols. Vol. 11: Downton
Hundred, Elstub and Everleigh Hundred, Victoria History of the Counties
of England. London: OUP for the University of London, Institute of
Historical Research, 1980.

———, ed. A History of Wiltshire. 17 vols. Vol. 13: South-West Wiltshire:
Chalke and Dunworth Hundreds, OUP for the University of London,
Institute of Historical Research. London: OUP for the University of
London, Institute of Historical Research, 1987.

Lobel, Mary D., ed. A History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 5:
Bullingdon Hundred, Victoria History of the Counties of England. London:
OUP for the University of London, Institute of Historical Research, 1987.

Page, William, ed. The Victoria History of Hertfordshire. 4 vols. Vol.
3, Victoria History of the Counties of England. London, 1914.

Roskell, John Smith, ed. The House of Commons, 1386-1421. 4 vols. Vol.
4: Biog. of Sir John Roches. London: Alan Sutton Publishing for the
History of Parliament Trust, 1992.

———, ed. The House of Commons, 1386-1421. 4 vols. Vol. 4: Biog. of John
Stourton. London: Alan Sutton Publishing for the History of Parliament
Trust, 1992.

Squibb, G. D., ed. Wiltshire Visitation Pedigrees, 1623. Vol. 105 and
106, Visitations Series. London: The Harleian Society, 1954.


Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."

Hal Bradley


-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

snip

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 11 jun 2006 03:12:40

John Higgins wrote:
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.

Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.
This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.

Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In that
thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence which
proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a Batisford. When
time permits, I'll try to post it for you."

In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.

John Brandon
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof."

I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.

It seems clear that this is a correction
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two publications.


Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last updated 3
June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been removed.

In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line, as
presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation. However
there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship that can
cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof of the
crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands or fails.

Louise

John Higgins

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Higgins » 11 jun 2006 03:27:02

The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.

This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point. John Brandon
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof." It seems clear that this is a correction
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two publications.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Bradley" <hw.bradley@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Louise,

Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter
of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."

Hal Bradley


-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

snip



Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 11 jun 2006 04:58:37

Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel & William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

Hal Bradley

RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 11 jun 2006 05:34:03

Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel & William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

John Higgins

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Higgins » 11 jun 2006 06:41:01

I understand, and fully support, your effort to conclusively demonstrate the
inadequacy of DR's references to support this particular assertion, and more
broadly (and more importantly) the lack of scholarship that this indicates.
And this is certainly not the only instance of this problem, as readers of
this group know very well.

Although I applaud the effort (and others of a similar nature), I wonder if
it will have any impact on future works by the author. I've said before
that his works do have some value (IF they are used with care and thoroughly
verified before being cited), but his credibility has been greatly damaged
by the false aura of "scholarship" that is being increasingly challenged and
by his refusal to accept and admit that mistakes CAN be made. It's too
bad....a more "collegial" response would contribute greatly to the
usefulness of this group.

Perhaps the best we can do is to keep highlighting the issues, so that at
least some readers of RPA and MCA are aware of them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


John Higgins wrote:
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel
Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi
Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.

Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.

This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.

Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In that
thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence which
proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a Batisford. When
time permits, I'll try to post it for you."

In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.

John Brandon
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this
year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of
the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof."

I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.

It seems clear that this is a correction
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two
publications.


Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last updated 3
June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been removed.

In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line, as
presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation. However
there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship that can
cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof of the
crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands or fails.

Louise


Debruised Robertson

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Debruised Robertson » 11 jun 2006 13:46:18

In message of 11 Jun, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

John Higgins wrote:
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of
Abel Lunt" says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana
filia Willi Ichingham, mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second
wife Katherine Payne, this pedigree (such as it is) clearly
provides no support for the RPA/MCA assertion that Joan Echingham's
mother was Joan Arundel.

Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.

This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are
many postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.

Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In
that thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence
which proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a
Batisford. When time permits, I'll try to post it for you."

In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.

John Brandon
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of
this year that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel
ancestry of the Bayntuns is incapable of proof."

I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.

It seems clear that this is a correction
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and
never delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two
publications.


Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last
updated 3 June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been
removed.

In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line,
as presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation.
However there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship
that can cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof
of the crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands
or fails.

Louise

What an extremely good post, so good that I wish I had been able to
write it myself.

What has to be remembered in all this is that it was my associate, Mr
Faris of honoured memory, who originally wrote this in the second
edition of the earlier series "Plantagenet Awfulness of the Seventeenth
Century". Now of course we have the New Plantagenet Awfulness without
Clause Four and thus appealing the more both to the masses and to the
chattering classes.

It was this associate who invented these sad practices and which,
knowing his condition and the esteem with which he was held, I did not
alter in the final edition of the earlier series. Said DF of treasured
memory indeed wrote that John Boynton was the son of Joan Echingham,
page 9, though for some inscrutable reasons he added in the curious
phrase "it is said" to this esteemed account.

So in his memory I maintained that item, though deleted the curious
phrase, in New Awfulness - though I've given away my last copy so
cannot check precisely what I did. By then, the late lamented Mr Faris
was alas no more so, while taking over the enterprise and renaming it, I
thought it necessary to keep this treasured item in memory of him. Of
course I knew all along that it was suspect and thought it would not
take long for you and your colleagues to spot this - the real surprise
is how long it has taken.

But also in his memory I have maintained the non-scholarly style of
referencing any old document that I can drag up that might or might not
refer to the chappies in question. This was DF's dying wish and added
as the 29th codicil (unpublished) to his will and communicated in a
plain sealed envelope to me by his executors. DF knew how much I had
been helped by him in the previous incarnation of this work. Of course
the codicil self-destructed ten minutes after opening so I cannot show
it to one and all. His words, as I remember them, were "these punters
are no-good genealogists, if they buy the book it is because they can't
find the information for themselves. So give them some references they
will work at, that way they may learn which are good and which bad and,
with luck, may even become Real Genealogists." Almost my own words, if
only I had been able to think of them first.

So there you have it, a master strategy to respect the memory of a life
that is alas no more and to develop the powers of all the punters who
purchase my lovely, lovely books. I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to express my true thoughts.

the very best,

dr

Awesome Castle
Imperial Precinct
Salt Lake City

John Higgins

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Higgins » 14 jun 2006 02:44:01

One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter who
married John Baynton.

So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....

And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains
a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes
that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's
son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel &
William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise



Sutliff

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Sutliff » 14 jun 2006 02:55:44

No mention of Baynton in the Hoo bio in Wedgwood either. So?

Hap

""John Higgins"" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:002401c68f4a$c8651f20$a6708d47@labs.agilent.com...
One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee",
1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's
a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter
who
married John Baynton.

So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this
connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of
Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....

And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It
contains
a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes
that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's
son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel &
William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise




Hal Bradley

RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 14 jun 2006 06:01:01

Louise, John, et al

The obvious jump to this conclusion is made from these two sources: The 1623
visitation stated that the wife of John Baynton was Joan, daughter of Sir
William Echingham. Banks' "Baronies in Fees" shows that the only wife of Sir
William Echingham was Joan Arundel. Thus, Joan, wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel. This supposition would be supported by onomastics
since Joan is such a rare name ;)

Since we know that William Echingham had two wives, this leap cannot be
sustained. It is possible that William Echingham had two daughters named
Joan, one who married Rykhill and one who married Baynton. However, without
primary documentation, the Baynton/Echingham line should be considered
broken.

Hal Bradley





-----Original Message-----
From: John Higgins [mailto:jthiggins@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton
connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in
Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family,
probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other
sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this
discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically
any daughter who
married John Baynton.

So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for
this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's
"History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the
connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....

And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and
MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning
John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks
"Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of
these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have
now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I
hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne.
However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not
itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John
Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55
(1832). It contains
a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390).
Page 249 notes
that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In
1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251
notes Guy's
son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my
earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of
Joan Arundel &
William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married
John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1
(1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA
is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can
point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult
12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families
in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post
which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise





Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 14 jun 2006 11:34:40

To everybody who has helped by looking up the references I do not have
access to, thank-you. We can now say definitively that *NONE* of the 17
references cited in PA Echingham: 11 support the statement that Joan
Arundel had a daughter who was the wife of John Baynton.

Further, we can also say that only one of the nine references cited in
PA Baynton:12 claims Joan Arundel was the mother of the wife of John
Baynton and that reference, Davis (1963), is deliberately highly
qualified saying, "If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir
was Joan, daughter of Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the
"if" strongly emphasized as there is thus far no sound documentary
evidence found that she was..." p. 221 (as posted by Hal Bradley 11 June
2006). Apart from the strong hesitation by Davis, it is pertinent to
note that the Visitation of Wiltshire, on which he bases his conclusion,
only says John Baynton's wife was the daughter of William Echingham, no
wife for William Echingham is mentioned.

In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.

I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.

Louise

Sutliff wrote:
No mention of Baynton in the Hoo bio in Wedgwood either. So?

Hap

""John Higgins"" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee",
1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's
a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter
who
married John Baynton.

So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this
connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of
Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....

And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It
contains
a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes
that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's
son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel &
William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise

Hal Bradley wrote:
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:caramut@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported


RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984):
137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

John Brandon

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 jun 2006 17:19:03

In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.

I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.

Louise

Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
that this line is incorrect. But allow me to observe the following:

1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.

2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 15 jun 2006 08:15:34

John Brandon wrote:
In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.

I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.

Louise

Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
that this line is incorrect. But allow me to observe the following:

1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.

2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.

Actually, I am less interested in the specific line than in the lack of

scholarship in claiming to have reached a conclusion with no evidence.

On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.

Readers of this newsgroup may observe that I and others took a similar
approach with the references on the Beaufort:10 line (the Stradling
controversy). No doubt others will employ a similar approach in
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

Louise

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jun 2006 09:53:21

Thanks Louise - this thread has been a very interesting exercise from the
start, and no less so in the conclusion.

With some notable exceptions that most SGM readers will recognise, the study
of British medieval genealogy has descended into a fairly general malaise of
mediocrity over the past 50 years, roughly since the revised edition of CP
was completed. In my view this is mainly because of two complementary kinds
of hyposcrisy - indeed of duplicity - by too many of the people who are
active in this study and ought to be its leading exponents: first, the
self-serving, moral dishonesty of holding oneself to a lower standard than
others - as consistently seen in glaring examples from some SGM
participants, for instance - and secondly the self-satisfied, intellectual
dishonesty of politely respecting, accepting, encouraging and/or colluding
in a lower standard from others than is applied to one's own work, often
just to enjoy an inner glow of superiority - in the much more insidious
manner of some other particpants here, who usually prefer to shoot the
messenger of criticism.

Those who examine online or published work that is offered for personal
credit or promoted for sale to readers new to this field, in the kind of
critical enquiry that you have conducted, are doing a service to everyone
who is interested, as well as helping to ensure better research & analytical
practice in medival genealogy for the future.

Peter Stewart



"Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:qO7kg.9726$ap3.5769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
John Brandon wrote:
In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.

I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.

Louise

Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
that this line is incorrect. But allow me to observe the following:

1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.

2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.

Actually, I am less interested in the specific line than in the lack of
scholarship in claiming to have reached a conclusion with no evidence.

On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.

Readers of this newsgroup may observe that I and others took a similar
approach with the references on the Beaufort:10 line (the Stradling
controversy). No doubt others will employ a similar approach in
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

Louise

John Brandon

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 jun 2006 14:00:10

On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.

Of course he could not "re-do" everything. It was extremely
questionable judgment on the part of Faris to include the line, as even
Mr. Hunt in his looniest moments did not endorse that particular
conclusion.

evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."

John Brandon

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 jun 2006 19:54:47

Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."

Sorry. Didn't quote that correctly. It is actually: "The passion for
setting people right is in itself an afflictive disease. Distaste which
takes no credit to itself is best."

Probably shouldn't have bothered with the correction, however--thereby
showing distaste taking no credit, etc. ...

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jun 2006 20:06:38

Peter Stewart schrieb:

Thanks Louise - this thread has been a very interesting exercise from the
start, and no less so in the conclusion.

With some notable exceptions that most SGM readers will recognise, the study
of British medieval genealogy has descended into a fairly general malaise of
mediocrity over the past 50 years, roughly since the revised edition of CP
was completed. In my view this is mainly because of two complementary kinds
of hyposcrisy - indeed of duplicity - by too many of the people who are
active in this study and ought to be its leading exponents: first, the
self-serving, moral dishonesty of holding oneself to a lower standard than
others - as consistently seen in glaring examples from some SGM
participants, for instance - and secondly the self-satisfied, intellectual
dishonesty of politely respecting, accepting, encouraging and/or colluding
in a lower standard from others than is applied to one's own work, often
just to enjoy an inner glow of superiority - in the much more insidious
manner of some other particpants here, who usually prefer to shoot the
messenger of criticism.

Those who examine online or published work that is offered for personal
credit or promoted for sale to readers new to this field, in the kind of
critical enquiry that you have conducted, are doing a service to everyone
who is interested, as well as helping to ensure better research & analytical
practice in medival genealogy for the future.

Peter Stewart

Indeed; many of us post here in the hope of eliciting just such
critical review.

Louise's work on this particular point is instructive - unfortunately
some other otherwise excellent references works do not assign specific
references to each of their statements (eg HoP, DNB). It would be good
if we could all aspire to this gold standard.

(PS Great to see you posting, Peter; it's been way too long!)

Michael

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jun 2006 20:11:22

John Brandon schrieb:

Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."

Sorry. Didn't quote that correctly. It is actually: "The passion for
setting people right is in itself an afflictive disease. Distaste which
takes no credit to itself is best."

Probably shouldn't have bothered with the correction, however--thereby
showing distaste taking no credit, etc. ...

Nice! You are right, John - it is very easy to fall into the trap of
enjoying being critical for its own sake. To counter that, maybe a
good remedy is a regime of posting one's own original research and
welcoming scrutiny on it.

Regards, Michael

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jun 2006 23:44:24

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1150398398.479773.128530@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<chomp>

(PS Great to see you posting, Peter; it's been way too long!)

Thankyou, Michael, and others who have posted similar greetings, but I'm
afraid it is not my intention to stay in the newsgroup.

I quit SGM last year because of disappointment at the reluctance of some
participants to pull their critical weight here, in particular some experts
in British subjects who prefer to wink at errors and blatant ulterior
motives in some others posting in this field, rather than tackle them.

I was having to waste time frequently in research of matters well outside my
own interests, because others would not bother to do their own chores in the
effort to raise standards. I can no longer do this, as time even for my own
preferred research is severly limited.

The excuse sometimes made of not wishing to "stoop to insults" is, of
course, self-righteous clap-trap - targeted insults have always been a
heathy part of public controversy on any subject, not least medieval
genealogy, whereas "ad hominem" attacks are properly in the vein of "He
can't be right because his feet smell and his earlobes are too large" rather
than observations about behaviour, habits and failings directly related to
activities in this forum.

Some people are just coasting here, content to gloat that they are above
such grubbiness or argumentiveness. One of these milksops in particular only
found a critical voice of his own in order to shoot the messenger, and that
was the end for me. I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 00:27:19

Peter Stewart wrote:
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.

As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?

Have you explained why you no longer believe, as you did then, that
"availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people", and that it would bring "more favourable
attention than otherwise"?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 01:09:08

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.

As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?

Have you explained why you no longer believe, as you did then, that
"availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people", and that it would bring "more favourable
attention than otherwise"?

Chris Phillips

Still busy twisting other people's words to make your own inexcusable
predicament seem less invidious.

Read again what I wrote: "availability of this kind of work..." is NOT
THE SAME as "availability of this [particular] work". I continued
"However...", and then made clear that Cawley's work was not
satisfactory as scholarship.

If all of it had been on a level with the Flanders material, it would
have attracted more favourable attention than otherwise BEING PRESENTED
HONESTLY (which I assumed it would be after my comments) as the work of
a try-hard newcomer to the study offered for discussion by others. As a
"major new resource" in its own right, the Mediaval Lands database is a
fiasco.

For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).

Peter Stewart

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 16 jun 2006 01:11:41

John Brandon wrote:
snip
Louise Staley wrote:
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."

Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents

through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.

Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.

Louise

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 05:43:52

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.

As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?

By the way, there is a further misrepresentation by Phillips here: I
did not recommend that Cawley's work should be "published" on the FMG
website, but rather that under certain conditions his own files should
be HOSTED there, i.e. NOT that these should be elaborately reworked
into new files with copyright in the unwarranted fancywork held by the
FMG.

The difference is equivalent to a distribution arrangement, as per my
advice, of a kind that reputable publishers sometimes undertake for
independents to supply their books & magazines to retail outlets, and
actual publication under the imprint of the distributing publisher, as
if the presentation had been supervised in-house, which is what the FMG
has chosen to do with Medieval Lands.

The bragging about lineages having been "reconstructed" from primary
sources, when in reality these have only been rehashed from secondary
works with some ill-chosen and ill-understood snippets of Latin thrown
in, and with some new discoveries that turn out to be farcical
nonsense, is bad enough from Cawley - but then he obviously doesn't
know any better. The FMG, and Phillips, did.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 09:16:16

Peter Stewart wrote:
For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).

You didn't answer my question - did you not contact him privately to let him
know your opinion about the work had changed (or, indeed, to raise any
concerns you had about its presentation), before attacking the FMG in
public? Would that not have been the bare minimum required by common
courtesy?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 09:44:34

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6tp5e$vmu$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).

You didn't answer my question - did you not contact him privately to let
him
know your opinion about the work had changed (or, indeed, to raise any
concerns you had about its presentation), before attacking the FMG in
public? Would that not have been the bare minimum required by common
courtesy?

No it would not. I don't owe the FMG anything at all, and in any event I am
not about to be lectured on good manners by someone who distorts my words -
and even Douglas Richardson's - in a vain attempt to exculpate himself from
a shocking blunder that he won't admit.

My first loyalty in the field of medieval genealogy is to truth, not to
persons. However, I was a supporter of the FMG's endeavours from the start,
and have given the foundation the beneifit of my doubts too many times
already.

First I spoke up for them when the bona fides of the initiative was
questioned on SGM at the very start, then I took the trouble to post in
carefully researched detail on their discussion site to kick it along, then
I agreed to be an adviser and provided a good deal of conscientious
reporting for them on submissions, an effort that was somewhat wasted
(especially when an article was published without the revisions I had
pointed out as necessary, adopting references I has given only to gloss over
the purport of these, without even the courtesy of acknowledgement), then
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

But this Medieval Lands debacle was the last straw, and then for YOU to try
misrepresenting my advice from last July, pretending that this had actually
been followed, prior to a futile attempt to teach me about "common
courtesy"!

You are uncommonly foolish, fatuous and self-righteous.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 09:58:31

Peter Stewart wrote:
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.

I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG (and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.

At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 10:12:58

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6trl9$plj$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having
you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.

I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG
(and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.

At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.

The only allowance that requires to be made is your admission that you have
sponsored a load of tripe to SGM readers as a "major new resource", despite
knowing for 11 months that this was not up to scratch.

Your efforts at deflecting attention from this are lily-livered and
ineffectual.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 10:17:07

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6trl9$plj$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having
you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.

"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately first -
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 10:30:03

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6trl9$plj$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having
you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.

I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG
(and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.

At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.

Can you actually read and take in consecutive ideas?

Note that I stayed on as a member of the FMG and made a donation to the
library AFTER the offense I hasd taken at your behaviour.

So your convenient falsehood about my supposed "bitterness" towards the FMG
allegedly stemming from this incident is just more self-serving baloney.

The only "sad affair" here is your espousing the Medieval Lands database as
a "major new resource" when it is patently nothing of the sort. The sad
affair on the FMG website is their ignoring plain advice to the contrary and
misrepresenting Cawley's bumbling work as thorough, competent and important.

Have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup this: Do you still maintain that
Cawley's work is a "major new resource". If not, have the common courtesy to
your readers and explicitly retract this claim. Your difficulties with me
are quite irrelevant to these obligations to the truth.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 10:39:23

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately
first -
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.

I have no way of knowing which of my posts you're referring to. I don't
remember "attacking" you. I try not to make personal attacks even when (as
now) the provocation is considerable.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 11:16:02

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6tu19$rp2$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is
that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing
the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately
first -
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.

I have no way of knowing which of my posts you're referring to. I don't
remember "attacking" you. I try not to make personal attacks even when (as
now) the provocation is considerable.

It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred to,
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet again
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).

For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"? If
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.

Your difficulties with me, or mine with you, are quite unimportant &
irrelevant to this matter. The truth is at issue, not your memory or mine.

As for the "provocation" you feel to a personal atack, this is more
self-righteous clap-trap. You have yet to try defending the position you
took on the alleged "major new resource", and you can't prejudice
intelligent readers in your favour by seeking to characterise the style
while you persistently ignore the substance of criticism.

Have your years of participation in SGM taught you absolutely nothing along
these lines from the repeated undoing of other duplicitous posters?

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 11:26:29

Peter Stewart wrote:
It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred
to,
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet
again
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).

You accused me of "attacking" you. I say again, I don't remember having done
so.

I don't particularly like being accused of things I haven't done.


For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"?
If
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.

In the announcement I posted, I tried to be as factual and objective as I
could. I don't see that I actually made any comment either way about the
quality of the work. Perhaps you are reading more into the phrase than I
intended.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 11:58:23

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u0vh$vu6$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred
to,
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet
again
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or
whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).

You accused me of "attacking" you. I say again, I don't remember having
done
so.

I don't particularly like being accused of things I haven't done.

Self-righteous falsehood once again - just because you chose not to remember
an incident does not mean that it didn't happen. I can't remember when the
post was made, but the ludicrously hypocritical content of it was to express
your opinion that Peter Stewart didn't have the same right to express his -
and it was only your unsupported guess that the opinion bothering you was
mine in the first place. As I recall it was in an anomymous post reminding
SGM critics of something they should think ABOUT in a certain context, that
you deceitfully characterised as trying telling them what they should THINK.
You then used this as a pretext to tell me by proxy that I might not express
my views, asserting by this exercise your own right to do so freely.

For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"?
If
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.

In the announcement I posted, I tried to be as factual and objective as I
could. I don't see that I actually made any comment either way about the
quality of the work. Perhaps you are reading more into the phrase than I
intended.

Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish to
maintain was justified? Or have you forgotten the subject line you chose,
along with any other matters that do you no credit in your Pharisaic
self-regard?

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 12:20:25

Peter Stewart wrote:
Self-righteous falsehood once again
[snip]


Your recollection of the post is very inaccurate, but I assume you meant
this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... b001b20d73

If that's the one, there is no personal attack there - only a request that
the poster would stop making personal attacks on others - and indeed not
much else that anyone would recognise from the description you have just
posted.

Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish to
maintain was justified?

As I said, it was intended to be an objective, factual description. If you
are disagreeing with it, I suspect you must be reading more into it than was
intended.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:09:58

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u3um$n1b$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Self-righteous falsehood once again
[snip]

Your recollection of the post is very inaccurate, but I assume you meant
this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... b001b20d73

If that's the one, there is no personal attack there - only a request that
the poster would stop making personal attacks on others - and indeed not
much else that anyone would recognise from the description you have just
posted.

False again - you wrote:

"PS In answer to (I presume) Peter Stewart, these attacks on anyone you
perceive as insufficiently hostile to Douglas Richardson really are
unattractive. Please have the courtesy to let us make up our own minds what
we post here. Particularly if you aren't even a subscriber to the
group/list."

The presumption was untested by the "common courtesy" of communicating
privately with me, as you now have the gall to suggest I should have done
with the FMG before criticising them. At the time I had been absent from SGM
for more than two months - and being subscribed is not a qualification for
posting anyway, as this can be done ad lib through Google Groups.

The entire burden of the PS in your message was to exercise your own right
to criticise Peter Stewart out of the blue for allegedly expressing his
opinion, as if this was somehow less appropriate than the expression of
yours because it didn't happen to concord with yours. Self-righteous tripe
from one of the newsgroup's leading Whited Sepulchres.

Nothing that had been expressed in the message you were responding to
presumed to tell other people what they should post, but only what they
should think about _before_ posting if they wished to substantiate their
opposition to the specific matter in it. Once again, you eschew context in
the hope of deceiving readers.

Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish
to
maintain was justified?

As I said, it was intended to be an objective, factual description. If you
are disagreeing with it, I suspect you must be reading more into it than
was
intended.

You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's work
is a "major new online resource"?

Get on with it.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 13:11:52

Peter Stewart wrote:
You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's
work
is a "major new online resource"?

Get on with it.

I'm sorry, but (exactly as I was pointing out in January), I don't follow
your orders about what to post here.

If my previous posts haven't been clear enough for you to understand, that's
your problem, not mine.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:23:36

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u6v6$975$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive
one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's
work
is a "major new online resource"?

Get on with it.

I'm sorry, but (exactly as I was pointing out in January), I don't follow
your orders about what to post here.

If my previous posts haven't been clear enough for you to understand,
that's
your problem, not mine.

Is this a direct quotation from Douglas Richardson, by any chance? He is
much better at this kind of cop-out than you are.

We can ALL SEE that you have not tried to address specific points of
criticism, but only to evade each & every one.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 jun 2006 14:39:58

Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents
through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.

Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.

Congrats -- you've been at work on the two most obviously incorrect
items in the book (Baynton and Stradling). What are you going to
attack next, as an encore? I'd say the great majority of the rest of
the stuff is sound. Two or three wrong lines out of hundreds is a
pretty high rate of accuracy (to my mind, at least).

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 17:33:22

Hello Miss Staley,

I sympathize with your efforts, while also thinking that Richardson's
books can be pretty darn helpful, on the whole. I was pleased with his
account of my mother-in-laws ancestor, a Peter Worden of MA in the
second one (Magna Carta one).

One small thing I noticed last year. And I'll have to run on memory
here ; all my genealogy books being packed up at the moment for a move.

It dealt with a Thomas Lovett -- he was on two separate pages
(different places) in the Magna Carta book. In one place he had a wife
named Agnes/Anne Cope , and in the other a wife Anne Danvers. I think
one of the Anns survived and remarried to a Hennage.

I remember thinking it must be the same guy. His parents on both pages
were John Lovett and Elizabeth Botler. I wonder if the two different
Anns didn't confuse someone along the way.

Best wishes,
LJF


Louise Staley wrote:
John Brandon wrote:
snip
Louise Staley wrote:
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."

Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents
through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.

Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.

Louise

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»