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

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

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

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... 0Astley%22

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA22,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA27,M1

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

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[[email protected]]

Dear Douglas,

Excellent post.

One comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is useful.

Doug Smith

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Doug ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

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

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

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

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

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

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

Why is that?

Me ke aloha pumehana,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

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

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... 0Astley%22

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA22,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA27,M1

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

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Dec 24, 5:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

[snip]

Also, contemporary records indicate
that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely had a
son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH Warwick 4
(1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... &strquery=%2...

Actually the cited reference in VCH Warwickshire does not explicitly
say that this younger John Sutton was a son of Joan Clinton, calling
him only "John son of John de Sutton". Admittedly the context of the
reference (the entail of Joan's manor of Coleshill) suggests that John
was her son, but the same context suggests strongly that this John
died before Joan, since the manor in question passed to a son of hers
by a different marriage. This is the way that this particular John
seems to appear in most modern compilations (including RPA and MCA,
where he is said to have predeceased his mother). If the John Sutton
who did survive and have descendants was in fact the son of Joan
Clinton, how are we to explain that the manor of Coleshill did not
pass to him (and his descendants)? The solution that the elder John
Sutton had sons named John by both of his wives seems to better fit
the history of the ownership of this particular property.

The cited VCH reference does not appear to really support the new
hypothesis regarding the maternity of the younger John Sutton. As to
the birth date and birth place of the younger John Sutton (also raised
as reasons for deeming Joan Clinton to be his mother), the cited
article by Patrick Montague-Smith addresses these issues explicitly
and cites the contemporary evidence supporting the birth information,
especially the date (which actually might be a year too late, not too
early), and explains why it was reasonable for John to be born at
Coleshill. The same article also addresses the lawsuit of Katherine
Stafford's father following her early death and provides an
explanation for it. It may be "inconceivable" for a modern researcher
to understand the basis for this suit, but we've all heard many times
that it's unwise to apply "modern" standards and practices to medieval
events.

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

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

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 26, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
< On Dec 24, 5:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]>
wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

<
< [snip]
<
< > Also, contemporary records indicate
< > that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely
had a
< > son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH
Warwick 4
< > (1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
<
< >http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654&strquery=
%2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why are you?

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

Your opinion on the matter is now on the record - such as it is,
albeit in a less substantial and authoritative forum than the one in
which Mr. Montague-Smith chose to publish his conclusions. Readers
can choose to make their own judgments on the varying conclusions.

See other comments below....

On Dec 26, 7:40 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 26, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

[snip]

Also, contemporary records indicate
that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely
had a
son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH
Warwick 4
(1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... &strquery=
%2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You BELIEVE there was also another reversion?? No citation, no
website reference: IGNORE.

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

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

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

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

Funny how settlements may not be followed when it's convenient for
your theory....

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

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

Re-read the Montagu-Smith article on Katherine Stafford - you err when
you state conclusively that she was 12 years old at the birth of her
child. If fact he suggests that she was AT LEAST 14 at that time and
gives examples of other women of the time giving birth at that age.

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

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

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

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

So why are you?

I made no assertion in either direction....I simply cited the Montague-
Smith article. Another red herring....

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

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

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

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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 ]. I've also studied
the published abstract of the 1363 lawsuit between the elder John de
Sutton and Earl Ralph de Stafford. The conclusions below are my own.

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
first marriage to Katherine de Stafford was contracted in October
1357, when the bride was presumably about eight years old. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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, 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. And, it appears the bride's father
could sue for the return of the marriage money.

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), which would still have been a
bit premature for the marriage to be consumated. The manors were
transferred illegally, and a pardon was arranged by the bride's
father, Earl Ralph, for this trransgression. However, Katherine de
Stafford died soon afterwards, certainly before 25 December 1361, when
the 4th anniversary of her "marriage" took place.

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. 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.

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. I suspect
the editor is on solid ground on this point, insofar as the bride's
age is concerned. 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. Since it is
known from other records that such marriages were consumated when the
bride was twelve or thirteen, 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. 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. At this point, the case of Earl Ralph de Stafford and his
son-in-law, John de Sutton, fades from view.

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. This marriage was blessed with three children, John, Margaret,
and Elizabeth.

Patrick Montague-Smith indicates that John de Sutton and his 2nd wife,
Joan de Clinton, were near related in the 2nd and 3rd dgree, he being
of the opinion that Joan's maternal grandmother, Katherine Hillary,
was a Sutton. However, the identification of Katherine Hillary as a
Sutton is based on nothing more than that the arms "two lions passant"
being found at her tomb. See the following weblink for the details of
Katherine Hillary's tomb:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kbGeHb ... #PPA142,M1

While "two lions passant" are the arms of the Dudley family, they are
also the arms of other families of this time period, including the le
Strange and Catesby families. Please see the weblinks below for a
listing of such arms:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dTABAA ... 5-PA152,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=dTABAA ... 5-PA153,M1

If the Catesby arms are the ones intended for Katherine Hillary on her
tomb, possibly this could explain the later kinship noted between John
Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley (a descendant of Katherine Hillary) and
William Catesby, Esq., which kinship I discussed in my original post.
Also, it is possible that the "two lions passant" might represent the
arms of a family in the ancestry of Katherine Hillary's husband, Sir
Roger Hillary.

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.

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.

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. Yet Patrick Montague-Smith maintains without any evidence
that this John de Sutton "died young before his mother's death." 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. 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 ... +Plague%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... A1-PA62,M1

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.

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. 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. 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.
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. Having said that, I've
encountered other proofs of age that were off by a year. So I'm not
duly troubled that the jurors got the date wrong. All I can say is
that it happens.

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.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Brad Verity]

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

[[email protected]]

From: Brad Verity <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John
de Sutton the younger
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:25:36 -0800 (PST)

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.

<snip>

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

Who are you Brad and why are you so snide?

You enter a heavyweight championship, and lost by a decision.

Douglas and you show remarkable understanding of this pedigree?

You punch and counterpunch.

Why not resolve it, rather than bait and attack Douglas?

Thereby, your time and insight would better serve us all.

Instead, with wimpy jabs and ineffective slaps,
you showed yourself off as a nitpicking nitwit
who could have been a contender...

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Renia]

Is this bot still at it?

[email protected] wrote:

From: Brad Verity <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John
de Sutton the younger
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:25:36 -0800 (PST)

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.

snip


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

Who are you Brad and why are you so snide?

You enter a heavyweight championship, and lost by a decision.

Douglas and you show remarkable understanding of this pedigree?

You punch and counterpunch.

Why not resolve it, rather than bait and attack Douglas?

Thereby, your time and insight would better serve us all.

Instead, with wimpy jabs and ineffective slaps,
you showed yourself off as a nitpicking nitwit
who could have been a contender...

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Gjest]

Thanks, Brad, for this useful and careful analysis of some of the
differences between the Montague-Smith article on John Sutton and the
Richardson effort to rebut that article.

A couple of questions:

1) What is the evidence for the conclusion that Margaret de Audley
died in 1349, rather than 1348 as concluded by Montague-Smith (or 1347
as indicated, apparently incorrectly, in her IPM)?

2) Can you summarize your reasons for the conclusion that Katherine
Stafford died without issue (or at least was not the mother of the
younger John Sutton)? If this is the case, at least one of the
following must be in error:
a) the 1396 proof of age of the younger John Sutton;
b) the estimated death date of Katherine Stafford;
c) the date on which Joan Clinton's first husband Sir John Montfort
was last known to be living (which establishes a lower bound on the
date of Joan's marriage to the elder John Sutton).
If the proof of age is in error with respect to the date of birth,
that may raise another issue, since that seems to be the only source
for the statement that the younger John Sutton was born at Coleshill -
the crux of the issue regarding his maternity.

Thanks for your help....it's good to see you posting again....


On Dec 29, 5:25 pm, Brad Verity <[email protected]> wrote:

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

...

read more »

[Brad Verity]

Dear John,

Comments interspersed.

On Dec 30, 1:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:

A couple of questions:

1)  What is the evidence for the conclusion that Margaret de Audley
died in 1349, rather than 1348 as concluded by Montague-Smith (or 1347
as indicated, apparently incorrectly, in her IPM)?

She appears on a visit in the household accounts of her aunt Elizabeth
de Burgh, Lady of Clare, in the summer of 1349, so definitely survived
September 1348. The exact date of death of 7 September 1349 is from
her M.I. at Tonbridge, Kent (long since disappeared), luckily copied
by Weever in "Ancient Funeral Monuments". However, an IPM launched
several years later when her son and heir Hugh Stafford came of age,
returned 16 September 1347 as her date of death. The year is clearly
off and may be a mis-transcription by the editor of that particular
CIPM volume (a '9' can be easily read as a '7'). One of the things on
my list to do next time I can get to the National Archives in England
is to see if the original IPM is still available. At any rate, we can
say with accuracy she died in September 1349, either on the 7th or the
16th.

2)  Can you summarize your reasons for the conclusion that Katherine
Stafford died without issue (or at least was not the mother of the
younger John Sutton)?  

If there had been issue of the marriage, Katherine's father the Earl
would not have had any legal grounds to sue for the return of her
marriage portion. Montague-Smith tries to get around this by
presuming Katherine was impregnated too young, died in childbirth, and
her unhappy father felt he had the right then to sue as it was before
the conclusion of the 4 years stipulated in the 1357 marriage
settlement.

This was not how medieval law worked at that time. Women could die in
childbirth as easily as men could die in battle, and as we now know
the Earl was the one who instigated the transfer of the manors to the
young couple in February 1361, he would know that his daughter was of
an age suitable for consummation (probably about 16, placing her birth
about 1345). If she had died producing a surviving heir, her marriage
was sealed, and her husband would have the legal right to any
inheritance (including her marriage portion) that came by her blood,
until their son and heir came of age. This was called "by the
courtesy of England". The Earl of Stafford was very aware of this law
as it applied to him personally in regard to his holding all of the
lands of his wife's third of the Clare inheritance until their son
Hugh came of age.

It appears that John de Sutton was going to challenge the Earl's suit
for the return of Katherine's marriage portion. He may have simply
been bluffing to buy time, or it may be he thought he had valid legal
ground to retain it. If Katherine had been sent to the Sutton
household after the December 1357 marriage, to be raised by them until
she and her husband could set up their own household (which started to
be set in motion in early 1361), and the young couple did indeed
consummate the marriage, then John de Sutton had some legal ground.
He could argue consummation sealed his marriage, and he was entitled
to retain Katherine's marriage portion as he had lived up to the
original 1357 settlement by providing for her for close to four
years. We'll never know for sure. But we can deduce that no issue
was born to the couple as the Earl of Stafford would have had no right
to sue for the return of the marriage portion in that case.

If this is the case, at least one of the
following must be in error:
a) the 1396 proof of age of the younger John Sutton;

Ormerod's "History of Chester" is the source for this. It appears to
have been a Proof of Age that was done by the Palatinate of Chester,
and not by the crown itself, so it's not calendared in the CIPM
series. I don't know where the Chester records are kept, or whether
or not they have survived since Ormerod's time. The Proof of Age of
course is the crux of Montague-Smith's entire argument, for it puts
chronology firmly on his side. If the original is lost, the maternity
of the younger John de Sutton may never be settled with certainty.

b) the estimated death date of Katherine Stafford;

Montague-Smith quotes another document presented in Ormerod that fixes
her as alive in early December 1361. And where the original document
is that Ormerod worked from, I don't know.

c) the date on which Joan Clinton's first husband Sir John Montfort
was last known to be living (which establishes a lower bound on the
date of Joan's marriage to the elder John Sutton).

You can find those documents cataloged in A2A, and the date of May
1361 for Sir John Montfort being alive is accurate.

If the proof of age is in error with respect to the date of birth,
that may raise another issue, since that seems to be the only source
for the statement that the younger John Sutton was born at Coleshill -
the crux of the issue regarding his maternity.

In proof of ages by the crown, the first step was for the now of-age
heir or heiress to petition the crown to have one undertaken, then the
crown issued a writ to the escheator of the county where the heir/
heiress had been born. The writ authorized that a jury be empanneled,
and provided the place of birth to the escheator so that witnesses
could be gathered. I would imagine the palatinate of Chester followed
the same lines. So it is doubtful that the place of birth could be an
error. At any rate, it would appear not just on the proof of age
itself but also on the writ issued by the palatinate, if those have
survived.

As for Douglas's argument that the year was off - of course it would
settle the whole matter. If the younger John de Sutton had actually
been born at Coleshill in December 1362, not 1361, everything makes
perfect sense. But the proof of age as transcribed by Ormerod doesn't
support this, which is why it becomes extremely important to track
down the original. Ormerod could have made a simple error. If,
however, it turns out that he didn't, we are left with a 14th century
puzzle that may never be solved. Did Ralph, Earl of Stafford initiate
a return of his daughter's marriage portion knowing he had no legal
right but figuring he was more powerful than the Suttons and it was
worth a shot to get the money back, despite his infant grandson being
the Sutton heir? Or did John de Sutton the younger, for whatever
reason, knowingly or unknowingly, decide to enter his inheritance a
year before he truly was of age?

It's a fun and interesting question.

Thanks for your help....it's good to see you posting again....

Every once in awhile. Thanks and happy new year, John.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Gjest]

Hi, Brad:

Thanks for your very lucid comments on the questions I raised. As you
say in your closing note, "we are left with a 14th century puzzle that
may never be solved" - a resolution which is apparently unsatisfactory
for those who must have certainty in their genealogy!!

There is definitely a contradiction between the 1383 [not 1396 as I
first stated] proof of age for the younger John Sutton and at least
the implications of the 1363 lawsuit. I say "at least the
implications" because, as was poetically stated earlier, "the case of
Earl Ralph de Stafford and his son-in-law, John de Sutton, fades from
view" without apparently leaving evidence of its resolution. Thus we
can only guess as to whether either party really had a legal basis for
the suit, or as you suggest one or the other party may have been
bluffing.

Another loose end in this matter is that we have no conclusive answer
as to why the manor of Coleshill did not descend to the younger John
Sutton if he was in fact the son of Joan de Clinton and survived his
mother - only a supposition about some now unrecorded subsequent
reversion. However, Grazebrook may have provided a clue in this
regard when he indicates that Joan de Clinton had only a life interest
in the property and thus did not have the power to entail to the
estate as the 1371 fine indicates. if so, perhaps the entail
described in 1371 was later determined to be invalid, thus removing
John Sutton from the line of descent.

A couple of minor points on the 1383 proof of age:

1) Montague-Smith cites Grazebrook for this, who cites Helsby's
edition of Ormerod's "History of Cheshire", 2:685. It may be worth
noting that the abstract of the proof of age which appears there was
apparently added by Helsby (both the reference in the text and the
footnote where the abstract appears) and may not appear in the earlier
editions of Ormerod. This may be a clue as to its provenance.

2) You mentioned that the legal proceedings regarding the proof of
age would have taken place in the county where the heir was born. But
Coleshill, the stated birthplace of the younger John Sutton, was in
Warwickshire, not Cheshire. Something seems amiss here. Did the
action take place in Cheshire actually because the father's properties
were located there, rather than because the son was supposedly born
there?

3) A nit: Montague-Smith citing Grazebrook says that one of the
witnesses to the proof of age was Philip Egerton of Egerton.
Grazebrook also calls him Philip (although not saying "of Egerton").
But the abstract in Helsby's Omerod appears to call him
"Radulphus" [Ralph?} without specifying which Egerton family he was
from. If Helsby is right, Grazebrook apparently got it wrong, and
Montague-Smith apparently didn't check beyond Grazebrook.

On Dec 31, 11:20 am, Brad Verity <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear John,

Comments interspersed.

On Dec 30, 1:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:

A couple of questions:

1) What is the evidence for the conclusion that Margaret de Audley
died in 1349, rather than 1348 as concluded by Montague-Smith (or 1347
as indicated, apparently incorrectly, in her IPM)?

She appears on a visit in the household accounts of her aunt Elizabeth
de Burgh, Lady of Clare, in the summer of 1349, so definitely survived
September 1348. The exact date of death of 7 September 1349 is from
her M.I. at Tonbridge, Kent (long since disappeared), luckily copied
by Weever in "Ancient Funeral Monuments". However, an IPM launched
several years later when her son and heir Hugh Stafford came of age,
returned 16 September 1347 as her date of death. The year is clearly
off and may be a mis-transcription by the editor of that particular
CIPM volume (a '9' can be easily read as a '7'). One of the things on
my list to do next time I can get to the National Archives in England
is to see if the original IPM is still available. At any rate, we can
say with accuracy she died in September 1349, either on the 7th or the
16th.

2) Can you summarize your reasons for the conclusion that Katherine
Stafford died without issue (or at least was not the mother of the
younger John Sutton)?

If there had been issue of the marriage, Katherine's father the Earl
would not have had any legal grounds to sue for the return of her
marriage portion. Montague-Smith tries to get around this by
presuming Katherine was impregnated too young, died in childbirth, and
her unhappy father felt he had the right then to sue as it was before
the conclusion of the 4 years stipulated in the 1357 marriage
settlement.

This was not how medieval law worked at that time. Women could die in
childbirth as easily as men could die in battle, and as we now know
the Earl was the one who instigated the transfer of the manors to the
young couple in February 1361, he would know that his daughter was of
an age suitable for consummation (probably about 16, placing her birth
about 1345). If she had died producing a surviving heir, her marriage
was sealed, and her husband would have the legal right to any
inheritance (including her marriage portion) that came by her blood,
until their son and heir came of age. This was called "by the
courtesy of England". The Earl of Stafford was very aware of this law
as it applied to him personally in regard to his holding all of the
lands of his wife's third of the Clare inheritance until their son
Hugh came of age.

It appears that John de Sutton was going to challenge the Earl's suit
for the return of Katherine's marriage portion. He may have simply
been bluffing to buy time, or it may be he thought he had valid legal
ground to retain it. If Katherine had been sent to the Sutton
household after the December 1357 marriage, to be raised by them until
she and her husband could set up their own household (which started to
be set in motion in early 1361), and the young couple did indeed
consummate the marriage, then John de Sutton had some legal ground.
He could argue consummation sealed his marriage, and he was entitled
to retain Katherine's marriage portion as he had lived up to the
original 1357 settlement by providing for her for close to four
years. We'll never know for sure. But we can deduce that no issue
was born to the couple as the Earl of Stafford would have had no right
to sue for the return of the marriage portion in that case.

If this is the case, at least one of the
following must be in error:
a) the 1396 proof of age of the younger John Sutton;

Ormerod's "History of Chester" is the source for this. It appears to
have been a Proof of Age that was done by the Palatinate of Chester,
and not by the crown itself, so it's not calendared in the CIPM
series. I don't know where the Chester records are kept, or whether
or not they have survived since Ormerod's time. The Proof of Age of
course is the crux of Montague-Smith's entire argument, for it puts
chronology firmly on his side. If the original is lost, the maternity
of the younger John de Sutton may never be settled with certainty.

b) the estimated death date of Katherine Stafford;

Montague-Smith quotes another document presented in Ormerod that fixes
her as alive in early December 1361. And where the original document
is that Ormerod worked from, I don't know.

c) the date on which Joan Clinton's first husband Sir John Montfort
was last known to be living (which establishes a lower bound on the
date of Joan's marriage to the elder John Sutton).

You can find those documents cataloged in A2A, and the date of May
1361 for Sir John Montfort being alive is accurate.

If the proof of age is in error with respect to the date of birth,
that may raise another issue, since that seems to be the only source
for the statement that the younger John Sutton was born at Coleshill -
the crux of the issue regarding his maternity.

In proof of ages by the crown, the first step was for the now of-age
heir or heiress to petition the crown to have one undertaken, then the
crown issued a writ to the escheator of the county where the heir/
heiress had been born. The writ authorized that a jury be empanneled,
and provided the place of birth to the escheator so that witnesses
could be gathered. I would imagine the palatinate of Chester followed
the same lines. So it is doubtful that the place of birth could be an
error. At any rate, it would appear not just on the proof of age
itself but also on the writ issued by the palatinate, if those have
survived.

As for Douglas's argument that the year was off - of course it would
settle the whole matter. If the younger John de Sutton had actually
been born at Coleshill in December 1362, not 1361, everything makes
perfect sense. But the proof of age as transcribed by Ormerod doesn't
support this, which is why it becomes extremely important to track
down the original. Ormerod could have made a simple error. If,
however, it turns out that he didn't, we are left with a 14th century
puzzle that may never be solved. Did Ralph, Earl of Stafford initiate
a return of his daughter's marriage portion knowing he had no legal
right but figuring he was more powerful than the Suttons and it was
worth a shot to get the money back, despite his infant grandson being
the Sutton heir? Or did John de Sutton the younger, for whatever
reason, knowingly or unknowingly, decide to enter his inheritance a
year before he truly was of age?

It's a fun and interesting question.

Thanks for your help....it's good to see you posting again....

Every once in awhile. Thanks and happy new year, John.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

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

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

[wjhonson]

On Dec 31 2007, 11:11 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

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

Will Johnson

[John Briggs]

wjhonson wrote:

On Dec 31 2007, 11:11 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1502-1553
&ca 1520 Jane Guldeford

5. Robert de Sutton-Dudley, Earl of Leicester 1532-1588
& Lettice Knollys 1539-1634

6. Robert Sutton-Tudor (Devereux), Earl of Essex 1566-1601
&1590 Frances Walsingham †1631

7. Frances Sutton-Tudor (Devereux) †1674/1679
&1616 William Seymour, Duke of Somerset 1587-1660

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

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

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 1, 11:06 am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

< --
< John Briggs


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

DR

[D. Spencer Hines]

Fair Enough.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:97d880ee-ae91-4cb0-891d-cb92233f03b2@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 1, 11:06 am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

DR

[John Briggs]

wjhonson wrote:

On Jan 1, 4:03 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Um ... I coped the information off the internet, which I clearly
stated in my post. I made no corrections or additions. As with all
secondary books and online sources, this descent needs verification
against original contemporary records. You're welcome to provide that
documentation if this matters much to you.

DR

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

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

DR strikes again.

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

[D. Spencer Hines]

Angry Twaddle.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:73a73895-ce4c-412c-ab75-c36f0c03cd4c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 1, 4:03 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

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

DR

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

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

DR strikes again.

[wjhonson]

On Jan 1, 4:03 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

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

DR

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

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

DR strikes again.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=deoGAA ... Gryffyn%22

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

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... y=Stockton

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 2, 12:44 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=deoGAA ... %22Joann...

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

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... uery=St....

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

Thank you.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

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

[Leticia Cluff]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:41:54 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

Thank you.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).

For more details see the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=42654

Also Burke's Peerage p. 602.

Tish

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... 1-PA321,M1

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

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... +Malpas%22

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

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... denhale%22

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

See the following weblinks for a record of this settlement:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... 1-PA441,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... 1-PA442,M1

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

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

See the following weblink for that record:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... 1-PA459,M1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 2, 1:53 pm, Brad Verity <[email protected]> wrote:

< Thank you for that link above.

You're quite welcome.

DR

[CE Wood]

I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information
given on the page in your link:

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... =%22Will...

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

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

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

CE Wood


On Jan 2, 9:30 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

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

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... =%22Will...

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

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... %22moiet...

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

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... %22Thoma...

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

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

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... dle+Plague

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thanks, Douglas.

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

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2050b475-fb29-4e33-9832-ed6ba0b7fcb4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer ~

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

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

Both of these works are available online through Google Books.

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[CE Wood]

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

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

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

Both place the Feast "next after" at 1361.

CE Wood



On Jan 2, 5:29 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 2, 4:56 pm, CE Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information
given on the page in your link:

Please see the following weblink for the record of John de
Sutton's
alienation of Malpas, Cheshire:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... 1-PA148&dq> %22Will...

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... next+aft...

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

[Pointless cross-posting removed - again]

On Jan 2, 5:29 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 2, 4:56 pm, CE Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
I am confused by the conflicting date of proof of age information
given on the page in your link:

Please see the following weblink for the record of John de
Sutton's
alienation of Malpas, Cheshire:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf8qAA ... -PA148&dq=
%22Will...

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Am44AA ... next+aft...

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

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

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

Montague-Smith didn't "overlook" Grazebook's mention of the second
plague - he cites in footnote 13 of his article. But neither Montague-
Smith equates the "second plague", starting in August 1361 (which was
35 Edward III, not 34) with the "middle plague" which the proof of age
dates as 34 Edward III. It appears that Grazebrook recognized that
there were two plagues in this period - can you cite evidence to the
contrary?

When it comes to "overlooking" [or "suppressing"] information, it
seems that you've overlooked the two other witnesses in the proof of
age (cited by Grazebrook, from text in Helsby's Ormerod, 2:685) which
as C E Wood notes gives dates that place the birth of John Sutton in
1360 or 1361 - definitely not 1362.

You've claimed repeatedly that the proof of age is wrong by a year
(despite three witnesses to the contrary) - but now you seem to say
(conveniently for your argument) that one of the witnesses' statements
supports a 1362 date - although both of the historical events
referenced by that witness point to a 1361 date. A weak argument....

As Brad Verity has mentioned, it's untrue that the Montague-Smith case
for the maternity of the younger John Sutton has been "demolished" -
at the most, one can say that some doubts have been raised (based
primarily on the 1363 lawsuit, about which we know very little). I
expect that the uncertainty will remain, and attempts to conclusively
declare otherwise seem unwarranted by the evidence.

[Douglas Richardson]

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hypotheticals:

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

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f73eea5e-1633-48e7-9b4c-
[email protected]...

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

[Brad Verity]

On Jan 3, 8:57 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

All newsgroup posters should know that ages given in medieval proofs
of age and in inquisitions post mortem are subject to gross error.

Hear ye, medieval newsgroup members - our trained historian hath
spoke! This is now a Richardson Rule, to sit alongside such dictums:

1) All medieval English persons had to be at least age 7 to be
betrothed.
2) No medieval English divorce records have survived, so we cannot be
sure how many 'missing marriages' there are.
And now
3) Ages in medieval proofs of age and in IPMs are subject to gross
error.

Mark it well in your notebooks! Pop Quiz tomorrow.

Although they are often quite accurate,

Oh wait, an amendment:
3) Ages in medieval proofs of age and in IPMs are often quite
accurate, but are subject to gross error.

Which ages (the jurors, the heirs)? "Details, details, one mustn't be
bothered by details".

they are not at all like a
modern birth certificate, and should not be taken as such.

Just in case any of us thought we should.

If the person said that John de Sutton was born in December NEXT AFTER
the Middle Plague,

The "person" (juror) said that and more. Perhaps you should track
down the original Proof of Age, or at least the transcription of it in
the 1882 Ormerod/Helsby (thank you, Jophn Higgins, for clarifying that
source).

he appears to have meant December 1362,

Nope, he appears to not have meant that.

which is
the nearest December date AFTER the plague. Grazebrook establish this
fact years ago.

Nope, Grazebook pointed out how two modern (19th century - modern for
him) secondary sources differ as to the timeframe for the plague. He
does not state that the juror meant December 1362.

Yet it was overlooked by at least three newsgroup
posters this week, all of whom had access to the Grazebrook article.

"Overlooked" presumably because these other three newsgroup posters
read Grazebook properly.

So we have three birth years for John de Sutton in his so called Proof
of Age: 1360, 1361, and 1362.

Ummm, juries impaneled for a proof of age arrived at one conclusive
verdict as a whole, just as juries in trials today arrive at one
conclusive verdict. The verdict in the proof of age that they arrived
at is the leading statement in the proof, such as "Douglas, son and
heir of Joe Schmoe, was age twenty and one at the feast of St.
Nicholas last, and was baptized at Salt Lake City in the church."

The escheator then asked the jury "foreman" who provided this
statement how he can know this conclusion, and wrote down the reason
the juror provided, followed by the reason the next juror provided for
knowing the aforesaid conclusion, followed by the third juror, etc,
all the way to the twelfth.

The jurors were not cross-examined, nor were they polled as to the age
each one thought the heir was. How many Proof of Ages have you come
across that run along the lines of:

Juror 1: "He is 21 and more on the feast of St. Nicholas last because
I raised him from the font on that day which was 21 years ago."
Juror 2: "I know it to be true because I had a daughter born the same
week and she is 20."
Juror 3: "I broke my leg the day he was born, 23 years ago."
Escheator [throws up his hands]: "Enough! I'm outta here! I'm
putting in for a transfer to Devon!"

I say take your pick, or, if you
prefer, throw a dart.

This from a trained historian. But, hey, that's a great idea for what
I can do with my copied pages from PA3 - throw a dart!

Either way the Proof of Age is not the best
piece of evidence,

Because it doesn't agree with your conclusion.

except perhaps for revealing that John de Sutton
was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, which was the chief estate of
Joan de Clinton.

Which does agree with your conclusion, so don't throw darts at that
part.

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

Yep. "Pay no attention to the Proof of Age over there - those things
are not always accurate. Look at this over here. Trust me, I'm a
trained historian, and I say look at this over here."

Cheers, -------Brad

[Gjest]

On Jan 3, 12:27 pm, "Monica Kanellis" <[email protected]>
wrote:

I seem to have her as a descendant of Aethelred II. No idea how strong this
line is:

Aethelred II
Aelgifu=Aelfgar III

Nope. There is no evidence as to AElfgifu's parentage (and this
marriage, between the royal house and one of the two most prominent
families of the time) would almost certainly have been mentioned.

Leverunia of Mercia

Nope. There is no evidence that any such daughter of AElfgar existed.
He has three documented childen: Eadgar, Morcar, and Eadgyth. Anything
else is 'hypothesis'.

Siward of Ardern
Osbert of Ardern
Osbert of Ardern
Amicia Ardern
William Bracebridge
Ralph Bracebridge
Maud Bracebridge
John de Clinton=Ida de Odinsells
John de Clinton=Margery Corbet
John de Clinton=Elizabeth de la Planche
Joan de Clinton

I have never looked at these generations before, so I can't say.

going back through the male Clinton line, the through Godfroi d'Arques it
links into Viking royalty (Sigefroi III of Jylland, etc.)

Do you mean the Clinton male line? If so, then I don't know that such
a descent is well-founded. Perhaps you could post the details.

taf

[Brad Verity]

Dear John,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post below. But I wanted to
take time and review all the various pieces of this puzzle that I have
at my disposal. Comments interspersed.

On Dec 31 2007, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Thanks for your very lucid comments on the questions I raised. As you
say in your closing note, "we are left with a 14th century puzzle that
may never be solved" - a resolution which is apparently unsatisfactory
for those who must have certainty in their genealogy!!

It comes down to determining with the limited evidence available which
of the following is the more likely scenario: that Ralph, Earl of
Stafford, was ruthless enough in 1362/1363 to demand back from his son-
in-law the marriage portion he had put out for his daughter after she
had died and borne the heir that united the Sutton and Stafford
bloodlines; or that Sir John de Sutton the younger was able to enter
his inheritance in 1383 about a year before he actually was of age.
Such a determination is bound to be subjective and non-conclusive.

There is definitely a contradiction between the 1383 [not 1396 as I
first stated] proof of age for the younger John Sutton and at least
the implications of the 1363 lawsuit.

I had hoped that somehow the transcription of the Proof of Age in
Ormerod/Helsby (thank you for pointing out that distinction) was in
error and the original would show that the year it was taken was
actually 7 Richard II, which would make December 1362 the birthdate
for John. But the writ issuing livery in May 1383 on the Chester
Recognizance Rolls is independent proof that Helsby transcribed the
original proof correctly, at least when it comes to the date.

I say "at least the
implications" because, as was poetically stated earlier, "the case of
Earl Ralph de Stafford and his son-in-law, John de Sutton, fades from
view" without apparently leaving evidence of its resolution. Thus we
can only guess as to whether either party really had a legal basis for
the suit, or as you suggest one or the other party may have been
bluffing.

Another loose end in this matter is that we have no conclusive answer
as to why the manor of Coleshill did not descend to the younger John
Sutton if he was in fact the son of Joan de Clinton and survived his
mother - only a supposition about some now unrecorded subsequent
reversion. However, Grazebrook may have provided a clue in this
regard when he indicates that Joan de Clinton had only a life interest
in the property and thus did not have the power to entail to the
estate as the 1371 fine indicates. if so, perhaps the entail
described in 1371 was later determined to be invalid, thus removing
John Sutton from the line of descent.

I haven't examined the 1371 fine in any detail at all, but the
original - or at least the source Grazebrook used when he cited it -
needs to be tracked down before Montague-Smith's conclusion can be
considered "demolished", let alone challenged adequately or
professionally.

A couple of minor points on the 1383 proof of age:

1) Montague-Smith cites Grazebrook for this, who cites Helsby's
edition of Ormerod's "History of Cheshire", 2:685. It may be worth
noting that the abstract of the proof of age which appears there was
apparently added by Helsby (both the reference in the text and the
footnote where the abstract appears) and may not appear in the earlier
editions of Ormerod. This may be a clue as to its provenance.

Again, thank you for pointing this out. If Helsby had access to it as
late as 1882, it gives me hope that it may have survived to the
present. But as to where to look for it, I'm at a loss, and someone
with much more expertise in using these original 14th-century
documents needs to be consulted. I looked through the published CIPM
volumes covering the 1365-1385 timespan and found neither an IPM for
Sir John de Sutton the elder (which Grazebrook acknowledges he could
not locate either), nor this 1383 proof of age for John de Sutton the
younger, which led me to conclude that it was somehow conducted by the
palatinate of Cheshire and not by the crown.

John, do you have easy access to Ormerod/Helsby? I do not, and I only
have copies of pp. 335 & 685. There are two other pages which have
information important to this issue: p. 684, to show which document
Helsby had footnoted the transcription of the 1383 Proof of Age to,
and p. 600, which Grazebrook mentions has a document that puts
Katherine de Stafford alive on 1 November 1361.

2) You mentioned that the legal proceedings regarding the proof of
age would have taken place in the county where the heir was born.

Yes, that was the standard procedure when the crown was involved.
Even in the case of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, who was born in
Calais, his Proof of Age was conducted there in December 1412.

But
Coleshill, the stated birthplace of the younger John Sutton, was in
Warwickshire, not Cheshire. Something seems amiss here.

Yes, that is the first red flag regarding this particular Proof of
Age.

Did the
action take place in Cheshire actually because the father's properties
were located there, rather than because the son was supposedly born
there?

I don't have the answer to this, John. It may be that all proof of
ages initiated by the palatine of Cheshire had to be conducted there.
This one seems to have been conducted in the city of Chester itself:
"6 Ric. II. Inq. cat' apud Eccliam be Marie sup Montem Civitatis
Cestr' coram Johe de Scolehall Esc' Cestris di. Lune in festo Sci
Cedde Epi".

What we can determine is that the 12 jurors impaneled were all
Cheshire men, and were not living in the town of Coleshill, where they
testify that the heir had been born. The implication of course is
that they weren't there when the heir was born, and this is also a red
flag.

Another red flag is that only the first two of the twelve-named jurors
provide testimony as to how they know the finding - that "Johes fil
Johis de Sutton, natus fuit apud Colshull in Ardern in Com Warr' et in
ecclia p'dca de Colshull baptizatus et suit etatis vigenti & uni
annor' in festo Sci Nichi ultio p'tit" - to be true. It may be that
Helsby didn't transcribe the entire proof of age, but if he did and
only the first two jurors stated how they knew the conclusion, that
was also very irregular. And neither of those two jurors whose
testimony we do have said they knew it to be true it because they were
there when the heir was born or baptized.

3) A nit: Montague-Smith citing Grazebrook says that one of the
witnesses to the proof of age was Philip Egerton of Egerton.
Grazebrook also calls him Philip (although not saying "of Egerton").
But the abstract in Helsby's Omerod appears to call him
"Radulphus" [Ralph?} without specifying which Egerton family he was
from. If Helsby is right, Grazebrook apparently got it wrong, and
Montague-Smith apparently didn't check beyond Grazebrook.

Very good catch!

Some other red flags about this particular Proof of Age:

The standard procedure was that a proof of age was conducted mere days
or weeks after the writ to the escheator was issued. It took a
petition from the heir (or an agent acting on the heir's behalf) to
initiate a writ. We know that writs for a proof of age were issued on
the petition of John de Sutton the younger on 23 September 1380. It
took two-and-a-half years between the writ and the proof of age! It
is also evidence that John de Sutton the younger was suing to enter
his inheritance two months before his 20th birthday, if we assume
Montague-Smith's conclusion that he was born in December 1361 is
correct. It also may be significant that 1380 appears to be the year
that John the younger's own son and heir was born.

Meanwhile Montague-Smith asserts that John de Sutton the younger's
wardship and marriage had been acquired by Richard Fitzalan, Earl of
Arundel. He cites Grazebrook as his source, and points out that
Grazebrook's own source for this (Dugdale, citing Glover's
'Collections') had to be in error, since it stated that "his wardship
and marriage being granted to Richard Earl of Arundel, was sold in 5
R. II., 1381-2, for 350 marks to Philip le Dispenser, Lord of
Carlington", and John de Sutton the younger was already a father in
1380. Neither Grazebrook or Montague-Smith tracked down Glover to
determine his source for this assertion about John de Sutton the
younger's wardship, and now we are left with a date discrepancy: we
know from the 1380 writ that Sir Philip le Despenser already held the
wardship of one part of John de Sutton the younger's lands (the other
part was held by Sir Walter Paul). Montague-Smith had dismissed
Grazebrook's indication of three sources (Adlard, Blore and Baker)
which state a Sutton/Despenser marriage as impossible chronologically,
but instead it seems to fall into place nicely. A final red flag: the
only individual who would hurt when an heir entered into his
inheritance (and who would thus be a real stickler for the accuracy of
the heir's age) was the one who had held the heir's lands in
wardship. Of the two men who had the wardship of John de Sutton the
younger's lands when he petitioned for livery when he was apparently
under-age, one may have been his own father-in-law.

Douglas, the clearly UN-trained historian, would simply dismiss the
1383 Proof of Age (ignore it, throw darts at it), instead of studying
it in context. When we do take a close look at it, facts emerge which
actually help bolster his own argument and even shed some light on the
identity of the mother of John de Sutton the younger's son and heir.

Cheers, -----------Brad

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

Hypotheticals:

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

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

[Monica Kanellis]

Hi Taf

I rather expect the other line is even wonkier than the first. Perhaps
someone more familiar with this time period can offer some input. I have
sketched in my own lines, have had no time to go through them all, and these
particular ones are peripheral cousinships, so they have received even less
attention.

best,

mk

On Jan 3, 2008 7:17 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 3, 12:27 pm, "Monica Kanellis" <[email protected]
wrote:

I seem to have her as a descendant of Aethelred II. No idea how strong
this
line is:

Aethelred II
Aelgifu=Aelfgar III

Nope. There is no evidence as to AElfgifu's parentage (and this
marriage, between the royal house and one of the two most prominent
families of the time) would almost certainly have been mentioned.

Leverunia of Mercia

Nope. There is no evidence that any such daughter of AElfgar existed.
He has three documented childen: Eadgar, Morcar, and Eadgyth. Anything
else is 'hypothesis'.

Siward of Ardern
Osbert of Ardern
Osbert of Ardern
Amicia Ardern
William Bracebridge
Ralph Bracebridge
Maud Bracebridge
John de Clinton=Ida de Odinsells
John de Clinton=Margery Corbet
John de Clinton=Elizabeth de la Planche
Joan de Clinton

I have never looked at these generations before, so I can't say.

going back through the male Clinton line, the through Godfroi d'Arques
it
links into Viking royalty (Sigefroi III of Jylland, etc.)

Do you mean the Clinton male line? If so, then I don't know that such
a descent is well-founded. Perhaps you could post the details.

taf

-------------------------------
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

[Gjest]

On Jan 4, 2:17 pm, "Monica Kanellis" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hi Taf

I rather expect the other line is even wonkier than the first.

Maybe so, but now you've piqued my curiosity. It can sometimes be
instructive to see what connections people are trying to make these
days.

Perhaps
someone more familiar with this time period can offer some input. I have
sketched in my own lines, have had no time to go through them all, and these
particular ones are peripheral cousinships, so they have received even less
attention.

I fully understand - there are way too many possible medieval lines
for anyone to have time for, let alone be expert on all of them.

taf

[Gjest]

See below for further info from Helsby's edition of Ormerod....

On Jan 3, 11:32 pm, Brad Verity <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear John,

[snip]

John, do you have easy access to Ormerod/Helsby? I do not, and I only
have copies of pp. 335 & 685. There are two other pages which have
information important to this issue: p. 684, to show which document
Helsby had footnoted the transcription of the 1383 Proof of Age to,
and p. 600, which Grazebrook mentions has a document that puts
Katherine de Stafford alive on 1 November 1361.
[snip]

Page 600 is a reference to the descent of the Sutton share of the
barony of Maplas (specifically the manors of Shocklach and Malpas) and
the pardon given to Richard de Stafford with "liberty to grant the
same to John de Sutton, chev'r, and Katherine his wife, and the heirs
of their body". Ormerod (not a Helsby addition) dates this as "35
Edw. III. Nov. 1". I believe this pardon was discussed earlier in
this thread. I don't see that Ormerod gives a specific citation for
this item.

Page 684 (continuing to 685) is a reference to the same pardon,
although with less detail aside from the proof of age for John
Sutton's heir. Omerod's exact text is: "35 Edw. III. Richard de
Stafford and others have a pardon for purchasing Shocklach and other
manors from Richard de Duddelegh, with liberty to grant the same to
John Sutton [whose heir's proof of age is subjoined]". [bracketed
material added by Helsby, including the footnote containing the text
of the proof of age]

No citation is given by either Ormerod or Helsby for this material at
least that I can see. It's not clear to me why Helsby even interjects
the proof of age for John Sutton's heir at this point, since it's not
really relevant to the pardon being discussed. However, he did, and
thus we have perhaps our only access to this particular piece of
evidence.

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Brad Verity]

On Jan 5, 1:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:

See below for further info from Helsby's edition of Ormerod....

Many thanks for these summaries, John. I should also thank Hal
Bradley for emailing to me those two pages from Ormerod/Helsby.

Page 600 is a reference to the descent of the Sutton share of the
barony of Maplas (specifically the manors of Shocklach and Malpas) and
the pardon given to Richard de Stafford with "liberty to grant the
same to John de Sutton, chev'r, and Katherine his wife, and the heirs
of their body".  Ormerod (not a Helsby addition) dates this as "35
Edw. III. Nov. 1".  I believe this pardon was discussed earlier in
this thread.  I don't see that Ormerod gives a specific citation for
this item.

True, and it would be strange for the licence and pardon to have to be
issued yet again. The entry in the Black Prince's Register makes it
clear that he granted both on 30 June 1361. Perhaps there was a
change in feoffees that recquired a new issue. But without the
original that Ormerod saw, we cannot determine what this 1 November
1361 document exactly was: whether it truly does indicate that
Katherine was still alive on that date, or indicates that Malpas,
Shocklach and the other Cheshire manors had still not yet been settled
on the couple by the beginning of November.

Page 684 (continuing to 685) is a reference to the same pardon,
although with less detail aside from the proof of age for John
Sutton's heir.  Omerod's exact text is:  "35 Edw. III.  Richard de
Stafford and others have a pardon for purchasing Shocklach and other
manors from Richard de Duddelegh, with liberty to grant the same to
John Sutton [whose heir's proof of age is subjoined]".  [bracketed
material added by Helsby, including the footnote containing the text
of the proof of age]

No citation is given by either Ormerod or Helsby for this material at
least that I can see.  

And I have no idea where the original would be, unfortunately. At
least it appears to be a fairly accurate transcription on Helsby's
part.

It's not clear to me why Helsby even interjects
the proof of age for John Sutton's heir at this point, since it's not
really relevant to the pardon being discussed.  

He interjects the Proof of Age of John Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley later
on that page in another footnote. That one also appears to have
occurred in Chester, even though Lord Dudley had been born at Barton
in Derbyshire. But all the witnesses testify as to how they know the
truth of their conclusion in that proof of age. I haven't checked the
CIPM series to see if this later Proof of Age from Chester has been
calendared in that.

However, he did, and
thus we have perhaps our only access to this particular piece of
evidence.

Yes. Thanks again, John.

Cheers, ------Brad

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Thank you kindly.

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

Still...

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

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

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

UNPROVEN.

Me ke aloha pumehana.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dear Spencer ~

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 5, 6:40 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Leticia Cluff]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:20:36 -0800 (PST), Peter Stewart
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 8, 4:38 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Douglas,

Thank you kindly.

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

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

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

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

I could mail the article to Spencer but I don't have his address. But
I'm not sure either that he would find that it provides the desired
evidence. Palmer discusses many cases, but not that involving John de
Sutton. Some of the cases involve children, but the circumstances are
different from the scenario envisioned by Douglas.

To help Spencer decide whether he should invest $15, I quote Palmer's
conclusion:

"The main purpose of this paper has been to think through the
circumstances attendant upon the making and unmaking of marriages. Not
all of these circumstances had to do with land, money, or goods.
Medefeld v. Sandcroft will serve, to some extent, to round out the
picture of the kind of contribution that the materials which are
preserved in the records of the king's court can make. The case came
up in 1286. It seems that Geoffrey Sandcroft and Mary de Medefeld
pledged faith to each other, and Mary thereafter was rather more than
reluctant to solemnize the arrangement. Sandcroft therefore sued her
before the ecclesiastical ordinary of the place to prove her as his
wife, and he won. By judgment he thus married her as his wife. But
Mary immediately appealed to the court of Arches. Both the parish
priest and Sandcroft thought she was being unreasonable: a firm hand
might resolve the matter better than litigation. The priest loaned
Sandcroft his horse; the prospective husband and two of his friends
then proceeded to kidnap Mary. They went to her house, and found her
in a forest near her courtyard. Mary would not go quietly. She wrapped
herself around a hawthorn tree, so that she was injured when they
forcibly dragged her away. She then refused to ride, so they put her
across the back of the priest's horse; she raised the hue and cry all
the way to Sandcroft's brother's home -since they did not go to
Sandcroft's own home, it is quite conceivable that he was not yet
established independently. They had a room prepared there, complete
with a bed; Sandcroft and Mary were closed up alone in the room
together for five days. But, the jury reported, every time he laid
hands on her, she screamed; Sandcroft's brother finally advised him to
desist. Becoming somewhat worried by her intransigence, they insisted
she make out a deed surrendering her right to implead them for their
misconduct. Only then did they allow her to go.

"Such a deed, however, thus made while imprisoned, never barred anyone
from suing; Mary sued, alleging forcible taking and imprisonment and
asking for £100 in damages. The jury replied as above, stating
expressly that she had not been violated. The court awarded her her
full claim of £100, what must have been a staggering sum for the
defendants. Nevertheless, if Sandcroft won when Mary's appeal
concerning the marriage itself was decided finally in ecclesiastical
court, he would not have been much damaged: once she was confirmed as
his wife, he would be paying the money to himself. But if Mary won her
appeal, the defendants would be ruined. Sandcroft had at least known
enough not to endanger his life by committing rape. This kind of
judgment was clear warning that the king's court would not tolerate
the heavy-handed wisdom approved by the local priest, at least when
the woman was so vehement: during an appeal against a judgment
declaring her to be married, a woman still retained her rights.

"Such cases yield more than entertaining stories. They show the
context of a case in ecclesiastical court which, either because the
events would have been considered tangential or because they took
place after the judgment in ecclesiastical court, would not appear in
the record of the case there. These cases also reveal the legal
structures around which people had to pattern their actions if their
actions were to be effective. Of course, a poorly performed grant
could easily survive as long as no one chose to challenge it; many
people would have chosen to honor what they knew to have been the
wishes of their relatives. But such sacrificial actions on the part of
one's descendants could not be counted on. Even very common people,
people who would seem in many ways indistinguishable from their
villein neighbors, altered their practices to take account of the
strange rules that were growing up in the common law. It is in the
determination of that social context of marriage and marriage
litigation and of the effect of the law on social practices that these
cases find their significance."

cited from
Contexts of Marriage in Medieval England: Evidence from the King's
Court circa 1300
Robert C. Palmer
Speculum, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Jan., 1984), pp. 42-67.


Tish

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Leticia Cluff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

No Problem.

Please send it to:

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

I look forward to reading it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

GOOD!

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

To help Spencer decide whether he should invest $15, I quote Palmer's
conclusion:

"The main purpose of this paper has been to think through the
circumstances attendant upon the making and unmaking of marriages. Not
all of these circumstances had to do with land, money, or goods.

Medefeld v. Sandcroft will serve, to some extent, to round out the
picture of the kind of contribution that the materials which are
preserved in the records of the king's court can make. The case came
up in 1286. It seems that Geoffrey Sandcroft and Mary de Medefeld
pledged faith to each other, and Mary thereafter was rather more than
reluctant to solemnize the arrangement. Sandcroft therefore sued her
before the ecclesiastical ordinary of the place to prove her as his
wife, and he won. By judgment he thus married her as his wife. But
Mary immediately appealed to the court of Arches. Both the parish
priest and Sandcroft thought she was being unreasonable: a firm hand
might resolve the matter better than litigation. The priest loaned
Sandcroft his horse; the prospective husband and two of his friends
then proceeded to kidnap Mary. They went to her house, and found her
in a forest near her courtyard. Mary would not go quietly. She wrapped
herself around a hawthorn tree, so that she was injured when they
forcibly dragged her away. She then refused to ride, so they put her
across the back of the priest's horse; she raised the hue and cry all
the way to Sandcroft's brother's home -since they did not go to
Sandcroft's own home, it is quite conceivable that he was not yet
established independently. They had a room prepared there, complete
with a bed; Sandcroft and Mary were closed up alone in the room
together for five days. But, the jury reported, every time he laid
hands on her, she screamed; Sandcroft's brother finally advised him to
desist. Becoming somewhat worried by her intransigence, they insisted
she make out a deed surrendering her right to implead them for their
misconduct. Only then did they allow her to go.

"Such a deed, however, thus made while imprisoned, never barred anyone
from suing; Mary sued, alleging forcible taking and imprisonment and
asking for £100 in damages. The jury replied as above, stating
expressly that she had not been violated. The court awarded her her
full claim of £100, what must have been a staggering sum for the
defendants. Nevertheless, if Sandcroft won when Mary's appeal
concerning the marriage itself was decided finally in ecclesiastical
court, he would not have been much damaged: once she was confirmed as
his wife, he would be paying the money to himself. But if Mary won her
appeal, the defendants would be ruined. Sandcroft had at least known
enough not to endanger his life by committing rape. This kind of
judgment was clear warning that the king's court would not tolerate
the heavy-handed wisdom approved by the local priest, at least when
the woman was so vehement: during an appeal against a judgment
declaring her to be married, a woman still retained her rights.

"Such cases yield more than entertaining stories. They show the
context of a case in ecclesiastical court which, either because the
events would have been considered tangential or because they took
place after the judgment in ecclesiastical court, would not appear in
the record of the case there. These cases also reveal the legal
structures around which people had to pattern their actions if their
actions were to be effective. Of course, a poorly performed grant
could easily survive as long as no one chose to challenge it; many
people would have chosen to honor what they knew to have been the
wishes of their relatives. But such sacrificial actions on the part of
one's descendants could not be counted on. Even very common people,
people who would seem in many ways indistinguishable from their
villein neighbors, altered their practices to take account of the
strange rules that were growing up in the common law. It is in the
determination of that social context of marriage and marriage
litigation and of the effect of the law on social practices that these
cases find their significance."

cited from
Contexts of Marriage in Medieval England: Evidence from the King's
Court circa 1300
Robert C. Palmer
Speculum, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Jan., 1984), pp. 42-67.

Tish

[Peter Stewart]

On Jan 8, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

"Leticia Cluff" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

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

No Problem.

Please send it to:

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

I look forward to reading it.

Let me save you the invidious trouble of posting it to him, Tish - I
can send the article to Hines more quickly at his e-mail address, if
he will confirm that this is as displayed on his USENET posts or
provide the correct information.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

GOOD!

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

But how could that be in question, when "Dear Douglas" has written "It
should answer your questions, both as to the 1363 lawsuit
filed by Earl Ralph de Stafford, and the 1370 claim to dower in Sutton
family property by Joan de Clinton, surviving wife of John de Sutton"?

Is "Dear Spencer" in Kailua reverting to doubts over the capability
and/or the integrity of his new best friend in SLC?

Peter Stewart