In more recent publications, PA3 follows the version in CP 12.2, while its successor publication RPA does not give a mother for Joan Waterton, thus suggesting that it follows the version in CP 5:193 - and RPA also does not show a Plantagenet descent for Joan Waterton, which would exist if her mother were Joan Everingham.
Can anyone help to clarify this apparent contradiction in CP?
On the subject of Everingham, RPA apparently overlooks a Plantagenet descent, via Everingham, for Barbara Sothill, wife of Sir Marmaduke Constable (for which, see the chart at CP 5:193).
> CP 12.2:44, sub Welles, shows Joan/Cecily Waterton, the wife of
> Lionel, 6th Lord Welles, as the dau. of Robert Waterton of Methley by
> his wife Joan the widow of Sir William Ellis of Kidall and dau. of
> William de Everingham of Laxton. But CP 5:193, in a footnote to a
> chart of the heirs of the Everingham family, says that Joan
> [Waterton] Welles was the dau. of Robert, not by Joan Everingham, but
> by a second unnamed wife. CP 12.2 cites sources (albeit secondary
> ones) while CP 5 does not.
The 1998 Corrections volume of CP, XIV, p. 311, has this cryptic
amendment for CP V, 193:
line 3 of pedigree, delete '2' above 'Methley'
I take this to mean that Joan Everingham's marriage to Robert Waterton
is to be deleted.
In the past I have been told by a private e-mail that:
"A modern researcher has suggested that this Joan was in fact the
daughter of Robert Waterton, Constable of Pontefract Castle and her
mother was Cecily Fleming. Cecily Fleming was the heir in her issue
(Joan) of her father Sir Robert Fleming of Woodhall Methey. Cecily had
a brother Robert Fleming, dean of Lincoln who apparently dsp."
I have found no evidence to support this and the marriage of this Joan
Waterton to Lionel Welles does not sound quite grand enough to have
been arranged in the way that most such marriages were.
Also CP 14 does not show a corresponding correction for CP 12.2, which would
be necessary if the marriage were to be deleted.
The age of Robert Ellis in 1425 is a strong pointer towards the
truth. Since he was born by 1385, his mother (Joan) would have
been a full generation older than her second husband if that
husband (the pseudo-Robert) was the son of Robert c. 1362-
1425. And in fact Joan appears to have been born in 1362/3; see
CP 5:193. Both the chronology and Occam's razor require that
the pseudo-Robert be expunged. One will, one death in Jan.
1424/5, one set of ipms = one Robert, who married (1) Joan
(Evereingham) Ellis, (2), between 1399 and 1403, Cecily Fleming,
(3), in 1422 or 1423, Margaret (Clarell) Fitzwilliam. While Robert's
will calls Cecily his wife, it does not say that she was then living;
if anything it implies the contrary, providing only for prayers and
memorials for Robert and Cecily. If it be objected that the will does
not mention Waterton's living wife, Margaret, it does not mention
his two children either; the only persons named in the will are the
executors, supervisors and witnesses.
Various records, mostly cited by Walker, show that Waterton
married Cecily between 1399 and 1403 and was still married to her
in 1412; she is said to have died in 1422, though I don't know what
the proof of that is. Waterton's son Robert, aged 16 in 1425, was
clearly hers. It seems less clear whether Joan or Cecily was the mother
of Lady Welles, since we seem to lack a record of her age at any
time. (Lady Welles is usually referred to cautiously as Joan or Cecily;
if she was Cecily that would strongly indicate that her mother was
Cecily also. But, while more-or-less original sources support both
versions, in my opinion the best are four ipms of John, 5th Lord
Welles, CIPM 21:306-07, which uniformly called her Joan.)
The sketch of Robert Waterton in the new ODNB is in accord with
the above analysis, though it does not supply its reasoning or
discuss conflicting views.
I agree with you that the references in the IPMs of the 5th Lord Welles (the
grandfather of the husband of Joan/Cecily) would seem to make a good case
that her name was Joan (although I'd be curious about other "original"
sources that lean to Cecily). As you say, if she were named Cecily that
would be a strong argument for her mother being Cecily (and also fit well
with comments in another post regarding the names of the granddaughters of
Joan/Cecily). But I would tend to favor the IPMs over onomastic conjectures,
which can be pretty slippery in a case like this. If she was named Joan,
that wouldn't preclude her mother from being Cecily.....I guess we'll never
I have seen only the abstract of Sir Robert Waterton's ipm
in Hall's article. If the abstract is correct in calling Lady Welles
"sister" of the decedent, is that evidence in favor of Cecily
Fleming as Lady Welles' mother? I doubt it; Lady Welles'
children would have been Sir Robert's heirs no matter whether
she was his full sister or half-sister. And, even if "sister" is
deemed to mean full sister, if I am right that the
1477 ipm got Lady Welles' name wrong it would not seem a
terribly reliable source for her maternity.
I would say that if Sir Robert's IPM names Cecily's children as his heirs,
that means that she was a full sister, not a half sister, as half-blood
relations could not be heirs. Unless the lands in question had been
specifically entailed so that they would pass to the issue of a half
sibling, the heir would be a more distant full-blood relation.
Walker's article in Yorkshire Arch. Journal vol. 30 says that Robert
was the third son of William Waterton, of Waterton, and his wife,
Elizabeth Newmarch. (To compound the confusion, the article at
p. 368 says that Robert was third son of JOHN Waterton, but the
pedigree at the end shows that the statement on p. 368 was a care-
less error.) If the pedigree is accurate, Robert Waterton had royal
ancestry through his mother, daughter of Roger Mewmarch of Womers-
ley, Yorkshire, who was son of Adam Newmarch and his wife, Eliza-
beth, daughter of Sir Roger de Mowbray, 5th feudal Baron of Mowbray.
Hall's article in Thoresby Soc. Publications vol. 15 expresses doubt
as to where Robert fits into the family, but leans towards the view that
he was son of John Waterton, son of William Waterton (who accordi
ing to the Walker article married Elizabeth Newmarch). This seems
more comfortable chronologically, because according to the Walker
article William Waterton was alive though not yet of full age in 1316,
and Robert was not born until the 1360s.
Roskell's History of Parliament sub John Waterton says that it is
"demonstrably untrue" that Robert Waterton was son of William,
citing a royal pardon of 1398 which says Robert was son of Richard
Waterton of Waterton. Walker's article shows a Richard Waterton
(who may have lived at Waterton though he was not the owner of the
manor), fl. 1379, dead in 1392, who was a second cousin once removed
of William Waterton who (allegedly) married Elizabeth Newmarch.
ODNB sub Robert Waterton says that Robert was a son of William
Waterton and Elizabeth Newmarch, and was "apparently the cousin
of Sir Hugh Waterton." But the same oracle, sub Sir Hugh Waterton,
says that Hugh was the second son of William Waterton and Elizabeth
Newmarch -- and was a cousin of Robert! Obviously both entries
cannot be right.
What a mess. As far as I can see at the moment, the most likely
version is that of the 1398 pardon cited by Roskell. Perhaps Roskell is
a bit dogmatic concluding that it is "demonstrably untrue" that Robert
was son of William -- surely this would not be the only time that a
14th-century pardon was mistaken as to the name of the pardonee's
father -- but it seems to be the most concrete evidence that we have.