Many thanks for a very good message. There should be more of this kind.
Keep up the good work.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John de
Suttonthe younger
Dear Douglas,
Congratulations on reaching a conclusion I reached when I first read
the Montague-Smith article about 5 years ago or so.
Comments interspersed.
On Dec 29, 1:29 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Since making my original post on the topic of the identity of younger
John de Sutton's mother, I've had the opportunity to study the two
main articles in print which cover the history of the Sutton family,
these two articles being the one by Grazebrook published in 1888
[Colls. Hist. Staffs. 9(2)) (1888): 1-152] and the one by Montague-
Smith published in 1984 [TG 5 (1984): 131-157 ].
You cite both articles above as sources in PA3, p. 277, sub Katherine
de Stafford/John de Sutton.
So thank you for admitting finally on the newsgroup that you didn't
read the sources you cite to in that book. Or that if you did read,
you didn't have the skills and knowledge base necessary to know how to
interpret them and use them to reach proper genealogical conclusions.
I've also studied
the published abstract of the 1363 lawsuit between the elder John de
Sutton and Earl Ralph de Stafford.
The abstract was transcribed and published by Gen. Hon. George
Wrottesley in his "Extracts From the Plea Rolls" (1892), p. 38, and
properly cited by Montague-Smith in his article as the source for his
own abridged transcription. You cite the same Wrottesley volume as a
source in PA3, p. 277, sub Katherine de Stafford/John de Sutton, but
pp. 79, 128.
Why no cite to a page that applies to the marriage of Katherine de
Stafford and John de Sutton? Did you read the Wrottesley volume and
suppress evidence?
The conclusions below are my own.
And long overdue.
As I stated in my original post, the evidence is good that the elder
John de Sutton had two wives, Katherine de Stafford and Joan de
Clinton, the latter being the widow of Sir John de Montfort.
The evidence is not just "good" on your point above, it is conclusive.
The
first marriage to Katherine de Stafford was contracted in October
1357, when the bride was presumably about eight years old.
How did you arrive at 8 years old in 1357, or a birth in 1349 for
Katherine?
Katherine
de Stafford appears to have been the youngest of seven children born
to the marriage of Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford, and
his wife, Margaret de Audley.
The 1363 Plea Roll proves she was the daughter of the 1st Earl. There
is nothing that proves her maternity.
We know that Earl Ralph and his wife,
Margaret, were married before 6 July 1336. My notes indicate that
Margaret de Audley died 7 September 1349, which would be thirteen
years into the known marriage, which marriage produced seven
children. As such, it is likely that Katherine was born in the year
of her mother's death or very shortly before that time.
Since 1349 was a plague year, Margaret de Audley could very well have
died from that rather than childbirth. You are borrowing a conclusion
made by Montague-Smith that Katherine's birth was what led to her
mother's death, though he incorrectly deduced that Margaret died on 16
September 1348.
In PA3, p. 277, you reiterate Montague-Smith's conclusion and state
Katherine was "born on or before 16 Sept. 1348" - a very strange thing
to do since you state on p. 672 that Margaret "died 7 September
1349". You never reconcile these conflicting dates, and any poor
readers of PA3 who are not members of the newsgroup will be left to
the conclusion that Katherine was born on or prior to a year before
her mother's death.
Since this new newsgroup post of yours is apparently your effort to
publicly clear this matter up, why don't you properly conclude that we
cannot know how old Katherine was when she married in December 1357,
though we can presume from the terms of the marriage settlement she
would not be of age to consummate it until 1361.
Daughters of
earls in this time period were often contracted to marry at very young
ages. Katherine's elder sister, Joan, for example, was "married"
before 1344, yet her son and heir, John de Cherleton, was not born
until 1362.
Joan's marriage was arranged in December 1343, so she was at least age
19 when her son was born, if not older.
I assume the arrangements for Katherine's marriage fell
into the same pattern. As such, when Katherine de Stafford was
contracted to marry John de Sutton, it was understood that the
marriage probably would not be consumated for several years to come.
The marriage would be consummated by the conclusion of the four year
period.
Otherwise, the Earl would have made the provision in the contract a
longer period.
For this reason, Katherine's father, Earl Ralph, stuck a provision in
Katherine's marriage settlement that if she died within four years,
the money he advanced towards her marriage was to be returned to him.
John de Sutton and Katherine de Sutton were duly "married" on
Christmas Day 1357. The term "married" here perhaps is confusing to
modern minds,
It confused you for quite a few years.
as it presumes that the couple were fully married, that
is, living in a consumated marriage. I don't think that was the
case. And, until the "marriage" was consumated, either party had the
right to ask for an annulment.
They did?
And, it appears the bride's father
could sue for the return of the marriage money.
The money was his end of the bargain. He was paying John de Sutton
and his mother to take his daughter off of his hands and provide her
with financial security for the remainder of her life. For this the
Suttons were receiving 600 marks. If his daughter died before the
marriage could be consummated, then the Earl had every right to ask
for his daughter's portion back.
At this point, it appears that or about June 1361, the Sutton manors
of Shocklack and Malpas, Cheshire were settled on John de Sutton and
his wife, Katherine. Katherine would have been about eleven or twelve
years old at this time (a presumption)
Katherine was at least age 11, or in her 12th year, in June 1361, is
the correct presumption.
which would still have been a
bit premature for the marriage to be consumated.
So then she was more than likely older. Settlement of the property on
the couple means they were ready to cohabit and begin their own
household. Since the Earl was instigating this, his daughter was thus
of an age ready for consummation and resulting childbearing.
The manors were
transferred illegally, and a pardon was arranged by the bride's
father, Earl Ralph, for this trransgression.
The manors were not transferred illegally to the young couple. They
were transferred without licence by the groom's mother and her husband
to feoffees. The Earl had asked and received permission from the
Black Prince (the feudal overlord of these manors) in February 1361
for the groom's mother and her husband to settle the manors on the
couple. He then discovered that Isabel de Dudley and her husband had
already transferred the manors to feoffees, without obtaining licence
from the Black Prince, so the Earl had then to sue for the Black
Prince's pardon and licence for the new owners of the manors (the
feoffees) to settle the manors on the young couple, which he received
in June.
However, Katherine de
Stafford died soon afterwards, certainly before 25 December 1361, when
the 4th anniversary of her "marriage" took place.
Yes.
Soon afterwards, Michaelmas term 1362, Katherine's father, Earl Ralph
de Stafford, sued the groom's mother, Isabel, then wife of Richard
Fisher (alias de Dudley), and Nicholas Jobynel, they being the
executors of the will of the groom's father, for the sum of 500 marks,
which sum presumably represents the money the Earl advanced towards
his daughter, Katherine's marriage.
But the Earl had only put out 400 of the 600 marks towards the
marriage, as the 1363 Plea Roll states.
The defendants did not appear,
and the sheriff was ordered to produce them in court [Reference:
Colls. Hist. Staffs., 13 (1892): 22]. This lawsuit was not mentioned
by Montague-Smith. The following year the Earl in turn sued his son-
in-law, John de Sutton, for the return of the marriage money. The
Earl produced the marriage contract in court and stated that he had
paid 400 marks of the 600 marks promised for his daughter's marriage.
He stated that the money which he had given for the marriage "should
be returned to him." He further stated that his son-in-law, John de
Sutton, had "frequently" been "called upon to restore the 400 marks"
and had "hitherto refused." The younger John de Sutton defended the
suit. In a subsequent court date, the younger John de Sutton failed
to appear and the Sheriff was ordered to produce him at three weeks
from Easter. [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs., 13 (1892): 38]. There
is no statement made in the court records that the marriage between
John and Katherine was consumated, or that Katherine left issue.
Indeed the presumption is that the Earl was suing because the marriage
was not consumated and that there was no issue.
Correct. Consummation sealed the marriage of the couple, and any
issue Katherine had borne would have legally entitled her husband to
any inheritance that came to her through her blood (including her
marriage portion) until her heir came of age. If there had been
issue, Earl Ralph could not have sued for the portion back.
It should be noted that the astute editor of the abstract of the 1363
lawsuit thought this case needed an explanation, as it is not stated
in the lawsuit why Earl Ralph, the fatherin-law, was suing his son-in-
law for the return of the money he advanced for his daughter's
marriage. The editor said: "The meaning of this is, that the parties
were infants, and the marriage was not to be consummated before four
years." If the editor's comment is correct, then the marriage was not
intended to be consumated until at least Christmas 1361.
No, it was intended to be consummated BY December 1361, and the Earl
asking for the property to be settled on the couple in February of
that year means the bride was ready to consummate in 1361.
I suspect
the editor is on solid ground on this point, insofar as the bride's
age is concerned.
He is not on solid enough ground. The bride could be interpreted as
an infant in a legal sense (a minor), but not a physical infant. And
the groom was of age (21) by November 1359, so certainly of an age to
consummate the marriage in December 1357.
She was almost certainly quite young. And, the
editor is correct in assuming that the consummation of a child
marriage would likely be delayed for at least four years.
No, you want him to be correct in assuming this.
Since it is
known from other records that such marriages were consumated when the
bride was twelve or thirteen,
What records make this known? How many?
it is not a surprise that if Katherine
de Stafford was aged about eight in October 1357, that her father
would expect that the consummation of the marriage would be delayed
until Katherine attained her 12th birthday.
The only conclusion that can be reached about Katherine's age in
December 1357 is that she wasn't of an age to consummate the marriage
then. The age she was deemed ready to consummate was entirely up to
her father and the Suttons to decide, and apparently it was agreed by
them that she'd be ready to consummate within 4 years after the
nuptials.
In any event, it is
incomprehensible that the Earl would have sued for the return of the
money he paid for his daughter's marriage if the marriage had been
consumated.
No, it would be incomprehensible if the marriage had issue. The fact
that John de Sutton apparently felt he had enough legal grounds to
defend his case indicates the marriage may have been consummated in
1361.
At this point, the case of Earl Ralph de Stafford and his
son-in-law, John de Sutton, fades from view.
How poetic.
John de Sutton susbequently contracted a second marriage to Joan de
Clinton, widow of Sir John de Montfort, of Coleshill and Ilmington,
Warwickshire, and Remenham, Berkshire, and daughter and co-heiress of
Sir John de Clinton, of Coleshill, Warwickshire. The date of this
marriage is not known, but it was presumably after 25 May 1361, as
Joan's first husband, Sir John de Montfort, was still living on that
date.
Have you checked Montague-Smith's source for that assertion?
[snip of the Hillary arms stuff]
At this point, John de Sutton died in 1369 or early 1370. His widow,
Joan de Clinton, married (3rd) before 1370 (as his 2nd wife) Henry (ap
Rhys) ap Griffith, Knt., of Bellasis, Long Benton, North Horsley,
etc., Northumberland. In January 1371 Joan de Clinton made a
settlement of her chief manor of Coleshill, Warwickshire. The manor
was to be settled on the heirs of the body of her marriage to Henry ap
Griffith, with contingent successive remainders to her four other
children, John de Sutton, Baldwin de Montfort, Margaret de Sutton, and
Elizabeth de Sutton. If the issue of her various children failed, the
manor was to revert to her half-brother, John Rochford, and, if that
issue failed, the manor was to go to her right heirs (possibly the
senior line of the Clinton family). The reversions are set forth in
the Montague-Smith article.
Have you checked the source Montague-Smith cites for this 1371
settlement? Since you are challenging his conclusions, don't you
think it best to verify his sources?
The 1371 settlement has caught the attention of more than one
medievalist, as it sets the future issue of Joan de Clinton by her 3rd
marriage, ahead of the living issue of her 1st and 2nd marriages.
Even odder, it sets her son by her 2nd marriage ahead of her son and
heir by her 1st marriage. However, Joan de Clinton's marriage to
Henry ap Griffith was brief and childless, he dying the following year
in 1372. Presumably Joan de Clinton changed the conditions of the
fine by issuing a later charter in favor of her elder son and heir,
Baldwin de Montfort, who duly inherited the manor on his mother's
death sometime before 1386.
This is a big presumption, and your dismissal of the 1371 settlement
requires a more researched explanation on your part.
So far we've seen evidence that Katherine de Stafford died without
issue and that Joan de Clinton was the mother of the younger John de
Sutton.
Yes.
Yet Patrick Montague-Smith maintains without any evidence
that this John de Sutton "died young before his mother's death."
His evidence is the 1371 fine and the fact that Baldwin de Montfort,
not John de Sutton, inherited the manor.
You have not produced one piece of evidence to back up your
presumption that the settlement was later changed.
In
saying this, Montague-Smith surely knew of another piece of evidence
relating to this matter, and, as with the comments of the editor of
the abstract of the 1363 lawsuit, I find he suppressed the
information.
By your criteria above, you constantly "suppress" information. I
pointed out an example earlier in this post. Of course you haven't
read the sources you cite in your published book, so your suppression
stems from ignorance rather than malice, right?
We learn from the earlier article in print on the Barons
of Dudley by Grazebook in Colls. Hist. Staffs. vol. 9 that the younger
John de Sutton died in 1396. See the following weblink for this
article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... %22middl...
Grazebook indicates that at the time of his death, the younger John de
Sutton held nothing in chief of the king, but that before his death he
granted the manors of Aston and Appletree, Nothamptonshire to John
Rochford, John Neville, and others. John Rochford, of course, was none
other than John de Sutton's own uncle, he being the same John Rochford
mentioned in the 1371 settlement discussed above. John Rochford's
chief estates were in Lincolnshire. As such, he would have had little
reason to appear as the younger John de Sutton's trustee, unless the
two men were near related. As for John Neville, he may well have been
a near relation of the younger John de Sutton's wife, Joan, whose
maiden name is yet unknown. Grazebrook had no idea who John Rochford
was, but Montague-Smith was fully aware of this man's identity. Why he
suppressed this piece of evidence in his detailed discussion of this
family, I have no idea.
Because it is not strong evidence. Even if John de Sutton had been
Katherine Stafford's son, he was raised by his stepmother Joan de
Clinton and would naturally look to her half-brother as a trusted
retainer.
Insofar as the proof of age of the younger John de Sutton is
concerned, both the Grazebrook and Montague-Smith articles correctly
state that the jury found that the younger John de Sutton was born in
November 1361, at Colehill, Warwickshire.
This Proof of Age is a vital piece of contemporary evidence.
Shouldn't you track down the original and not rely on secondary
sources like Grazebrook and Montague-Smith?
The manor of Colehill as
noted above was the chief estate of Joan de Clinton. It would be
natural for us to find that Joan de Clinton gave birth to this child
at Coleshill, if she in fact were the mother of the younger John de
Sutton.
Yes.
Katherine de Stafford had no known connection with this
property. Regardless, the alleged date November 1361 would place the
younger John de Sutton's birth at about the time that the elder John
de Sutton was still "married" to Katherine de Stafford, and at the
time that Joan de Clinton was still married to John de Montfort.
Correct.
Regardless, we know that Katherine de Sutton was dead before the end
of that year 1361. If John de Sutton married again quickly to Joan de
Clinton, the latter couple could have had a legitimate child born
before November 1362 without any trouble.
Yes, but that's not what the Proof of Age says, is it?
Having said that, I've
encountered other proofs of age that were off by a year.
You have? And they would be ...
So I'm not
duly troubled that the jurors got the date wrong. All I can say is
that it happens.
What a horrible lawyer you'd make.
In summary, I find that the Montague-Smith interpretation of the
evidence with regard to the 1363 lawsuit and the 1371 settlement to be
flawed. I conclude that Joan de Clinton was in fact the mother of the
younger John de Sutton.
Well, if that is your conclusion (and it is mine), you need to much
better debunk Montague-Smith's points, starting with the Proof of
Age. Have fun.
Cheers, --------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message