Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
Cristopher Nash
> For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New
> World immigrants who descend from Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st
> Lord Basset (he died 1300).
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Martha Eltonhead
Douglas, forgive me for being slow on the uptake (and my recent
general absence around here has to make it hard to!) , but might you
possibly remind me how this came about? I'm having trouble seeing it!
I've Basset's death, BTW, as 31 Dec 1299 — per Knights of Edward I
(Harl Soc vol 80, 52), though the source given is "G.E.C" —
presumably as in CP II, 2 — but the latter offers no docum. Have you
found something sharper for this?
Many thanks!
Cris
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723]. Ralph
de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in turn was the grandson of Ralph
Basset (died 1299), 1st Lord Basset of Drayton, by his wife, Hawise.
You're correct in your statement that Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of
Drayton, died 31 December 1299, as per Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 2
(sub Basset)].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> 27 Aug 2005 Douglas Richardson wrote -
>
> > For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New
> > World immigrants who descend from Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st
> > Lord Basset (he died 1300).
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Martha Eltonhead
>
> Douglas, forgive me for being slow on the uptake (and my recent
> general absence around here has to make it hard to!) , but might you
> possibly remind me how this came about? I'm having trouble seeing it!
>
> I've Basset's death, BTW, as 31 Dec 1299 - per Knights of Edward I
> (Harl Soc vol 80, 52), though the source given is "G.E.C" -
> presumably as in CP II, 2 - but the latter offers no docum. Have you
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723]. >>
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Kitchen", pg 496-499, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
states that this Elizabeth Beke is the granddaughter not of Sir Ralph who d
1372, but rather of Ralph de Stafford of Grafton, Broomsgrove, Worcester (by
his wife Maud de Hastings) who d 1 Mar 1410
Will Johnson
Cristopher Nash
> The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
> Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
> Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
> Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].
There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind —
concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of Elizabeth de
Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford — put most clearly I think by
Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE: Mother of Margaret Stafford> —
> In the Collection for a History of Staffordshire Volume: 1925 p.
> 109 ... from
> a suit at Stafford Assizes in July, 1402, we learn definitely that
> he (Sir Nicholas Beke)
> was the son of Mary (otherwise Mariota) de Bek, and that he himself
> married a wife
> named Joan; while from a suit also heard at Stafford in August,
> 1408 we know that
> he and Joan were both living at Lady day, 1348 (SHC XV, pages 114
> and 122
> Plea Rolls 1387-1405). However, the surname is not quoted in any
> source I
> have seen.
>
> As to Ralph de Stafford's children by Katherine de Hastang I have
> not seen
> any direct evidence that there were any other children from this
> marriage
> apart from Margaret.
>
> I am not sure how likely it would be for him to have 2 daughters
> both called
> Joan who lived to adulthood. Have you got a reliable source for the
> marriage to Sir Nicholas Bek?
I wonder whether for MCA or in the course of other work you've turned
up an answer?
Many thanks, again!
Cris
Peter Sutton
Since I sent the message in 2001 which you referred to I have done some more
research on a possible wife for Sir Nicholas Bek.
Josiah C. Wedgewood in HCS Volume: 1917-8 Parliamentary History Volume:1
says -
" Sir Nicholas de Beek of Tean, MP Staffs 1363, 1365 - Born c. 1320; son and
heir of Robert de Beek of the same (dead)in 1347). He married Jane,
daughter of Ralph Earl of Stafford who was the mother of his heiress (Harl
MSS 6128. folio 59; and Gonville and Caius MSS No: 573 folio 107 ex. inf.
Rev. Charles Swynnerton).
In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114), his mother
Mary still having Hopton in dower for life while he had only the reversion.
He was knighted by 1348 being then in the household of Lord Stafford;
doubtless for that reason he was put on the Commission of the Peace in 1351.
He was a Commissioner occasionally 1354-61; and Sheriff of Staffordshire and
Salop from 27 November 1368 to July 1369, when he must have died, as he was
succeeded by the Under-Sheriff till November.
His only surviving daughter and heiress Elizabeth married Sir Robert de
Swynnerton of Swynnerton and was the mother of the famous Maud Swynnerton
(SC XV 114) who was abducted by Sir John de Ipstones.
He bore Arms in the Roll of 1380: Gules a Cross Ermine etc. etc."
As you know law suits 2H.IV and 9H.IV refer to a person called "Joan" as
being the wife of Sir Nicholas although they are some 30-40 years after his
death.
Now if Sir Nicholas really did marry a daughter of Ralph Stafford and
Katherine de Hastang then there would be the following relationship between
Sir Robert de Swynnerton and Elizabeth Bek:
Sir Robert
de Hastang = Isabella
1st degree, siblings Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Joan de Hastang Sir
John de Hastang = Eva
2nd degree, cousins Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Maud Haughton
Katherine de Hastang = Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford
3rd degree, 2nd cousins Sir Thomas de Swynnerton = Maud de Holand Jane
or Joan de Stafford = Sir Nicholas Bek
4th degree, 3rd cousins Sir Robert de Swynnerton =
Elizabeth Bek
As they would be related in the 4th degree they would have required a Papal
dispensation to marry.
This is what I have found:
"Calendar of entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain &
Ireland - Papal Letters Vol: VI AD 1404-1415 - PRO 1904
Lateran Regestra Vol: CXXIII 1405
12 Kal. Aug. St Peter's Rome (f.214)
Confirmation, at the recent petition of Maud, wife of John Savage, esquire
(armigeri), of the diocese of Lichfield - containing that her parents [the
late] Robert de Swynorton, knight, and the late Elizabeth his wife, upon
learning that they had contracted marriage in ignorance that they were
related in the fourth degree of kindred, obtained from the late John do
Cabrespino, canon of Narbonne, then nuncio in England who asserted that he
had faculty, for the purpose from Urban V, dispensation to remain in their
marriage, with declaration of the legitimacy of future offspring; and adding
that her said parents thereafter died, that she was born after the said
dispensation and that the registers of the, said pope which should contain
the said faculty are not in the Roman court - of the said dispensation, with
declaration that the said marriage and Maud herself were legitimate.
Exemplification is given of the letters of dispensation of John do
Cabrespino, doctor of canon law, canon of Narbonne, papal nuncio in England,
addressed to Robert de Swynarton (sic) and Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas
de Bek, of the diocese of Lichfield, which themselves contain
exemplification of Urban V's faculty Personam tuam, dated at Avignon, 8 Id.
July anno 1 [1363], to dispense twenty-five men and as many women of his
nunciature to remain in marriages contracted in ignorance of their bqing
related in the fourth degree of kindred or affinity, declaring past and
future offspring legitimate [see Cal. Lett. IV pp. 87]
The nuncio's letters, dated in his lodging at London in the year of the
Nativity, 1364, indiction 2, according to the computation of the Roman
court, 25 Jan., anno 2 Urban V, are sealed with his seal, witnessed by
Berengarius Ferrarii, canon, [and] Peter Meyssenerii of the diocese of
Seboricen (i.e. perhaps Segorve, Segobricen, in Spain) and Geneva (Geneben),
and drawn up, attested written, published and sealed in form of a public
instrument by Raymond de Campo Albaldo, clerk, of the dioces of Mende,
public notary by papal authority Ad fut. rei mem. Justis et honestis."
Although this does not prove beyond all doubt that Sir Nicholas Bek married
Joan or Jane Stafford I now believe that this was the case.
Regards
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c...@windsong.org.uk]
> Sent: 27 November 2005 03:10
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
>
> Douglas, thanks very much for this -
>
> > The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir
> Ralph de
> > Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his
> granddaughter,
> > Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
> > Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].
>
> There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind -
> concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of
> Elizabeth de Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford - put
> most clearly I think by Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE:
> Mother of Margaret Stafford> -
Douglas Richardson
In addition to the sources which you have cited in your post, I show
that the Sir Nicholas de Bek's wife, Joan de Stafford, is identified as
the daughter of Sir Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in the
Visitation of Cheshire as follows:
Glover et al. Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18)
(1882): 201 (1580 Vis.) ("Sir Nicholas Beck = Jane d. to Rafe
L:Stafford & of Katherin Hastang") (Beck arms: Gules, a cross
ermine), 203 ("Sir Nicho' Beck = ... d. to the good Lord
Stafford").
Thanks to Google, the kinship chart in your post was a bit difficult to
read. So, I've taken the liberty to repost the same information below
which you did, but in two separate columns. The pedigrees below shows
the 4th degree relationship (3rd cousins) which existed between Sir
Robert de Swinnerton and his wife, Elizabeth de Bek, by way of their
common descent from Sir Robert de Hastang. This kinship is indicated
by the dispensation which you cited in your post.
1. Sir Robert de Hastang, m. Isabel
2. Joan de Hastang, m. Sir Roger de Swynnerton
3. Sir Roger de Swynnerton, m. Maud Haughton
4. Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, m. Maud de Holand
5. Sir Robert de Swynnerton, m. Elizabeth de Bek
1. Sir Robert de Hastang, m. Isabel
2. Sir John de Hastang, m. Eve
3. Katherine de Hastang, m. Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of
Stafford
4. Joan de Stafford, m. Sir Nicholas de Bek
5. Elizabeth de Bek, m. Sir Robert de Swynnerton
Once again, great work on your part, Peter. Well done.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/2005 9:36:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
In addition to the sources which you have cited in your post, I show
that the Sir Nicholas de Bek's wife, Joan de Stafford, is identified as
the daughter of Sir Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in the
Visitation of Cheshire as follows:
Although the papal dispensation is a primary document, nothing else cited is.
So all we know is that they were related in the fourth degree. For a person
with no known parentage other than this dispensation's elusive clue, *that*
is not enough to determine who her parent's were. The Visitation is
worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my opinion.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com schrieb:
> Although the papal dispensation is a primary document, nothing else cited is.
> So all we know is that they were related in the fourth degree. For a person
> with no known parentage other than this dispensation's elusive clue, *that*
> is not enough to determine who her parent's were. The Visitation is
> worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my opinion.
> Will Johnson
Will
It's a bit harsh to reject a Visitation record completely out of hand,
notwithstanding the timeframe involved in its pedigree. Certainly, it
should be treated with suspicion, but one needs to consider whether the
particular Visitation is known to contain other fantasies or
fabrications, or conversely, whether other of its contents can be
confirmed from surviving primary documents. One also needs to ask who
was responsible for compiling it (not all heralds were frauds or
gullible idiots). Some Visitations pedigrees are clearly based on
reliable primary documents, which may not otherwise have survived.
Others reflect family traditions, and as such may be useful as guides
or indications if not strictly accurate. Fallible and questionable:
yes; worthless, not necessarily.
MAR
Douglas Richardson
< The Visitation is
< worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my
opinion.
< Will Johnson
Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
that.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestrynet
Todd A. Farmerie
> WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> < The Visitation is
> < worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my
> opinion.
> < Will Johnson
>
> Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
> verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
> that.
Actually, Peter constructed the relationships based on contemporary
records, without reference to nor intention of verifying the accuracy of
any Visitation. If the Visitations require contemporary records to
'verify' them, and those same contemporary records stand very well on
their own without the visitations, it does make one wonder about the
relative value of the visitations.
taf
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/2005 4:06:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
that.
What records?
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/2005 6:50:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114),
What is "SC XV 114" ?
Peter Sutton
"SC XV 114" refers to Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Edited by
the William Salt Archaeological Society - Volume XV page 114 - published in
1894.
The page covers extracts from the Plea Rolls and concerns pleas of Assize
taken at Stafford, before Hugh Huls and Henry Broun, Justices assigned,
etc., on the Monday after the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene 2 H. IV, i.e. 1st
August 1401.
Peter Sutton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WJho...@aol.com [mailto:WJho...@aol.com]
> Sent: 28 November 2005 00:16
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
>
>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Actually, Peter constructed the relationships based on contemporary
> records, without reference to nor intention of verifying the accuracy of
> any Visitation. If the Visitations require contemporary records to
> 'verify' them, and those same contemporary records stand very well on
> their own without the visitations, it does make one wonder about the
> relative value of the visitations.
As a finding aid. To tell you what to look for. People and events to
find confirmation of - or not, of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Cristopher Nash
persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.
Scanning down, may I just ask — at the real risk of looking a gift h.
in the m. — whether anyone here has seen more in support of the
proposition that Roger de Swinnerton's w. Maud is a Haughton (e.g.
da. of Sir Thomas Haughton of Haughton — as per Rev. Charles
Swynnerton, Genealogist (N.S.), vol. xxxi, 69ff.) ? CP cites the
argument but with reservations and declines to incorporate the
conclusion (Roger de Swinnerton m. Maud Haughton) in its Swynnnerton
sequence (XII, Pt. 1, 586).
Many thanks again, Peter — and to Douglas.
Cris
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/28/2005 4:35:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@windsong.org.uk writes:
Thanks enormously for this, Peter — it's an extremely canny and
persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.
From what I see it only shows that two persons were related in the fourth
degree.
You understand of course that this could occur in a very large variety of
ways ?
The documents do not specify how they were related.
Will Johnson
Peter Sutton
Collections for a History of Staffordshire (The William Salt Archaeological
Society) Volume: 1917-8 - Staffordshire Parliamentary History Vol I,
1213-1603 by Josiah C. Wedgewood page 70 onwards, concerning Sir Roger de
Swynnerton, says " ......... He died in March of the following year, 1338,
leaving a widow Matilda. As this widow had not married again by 1357-8 we
may assume that she was his first and only wife and the mother of his large
family. She was almost certainly Matilda, daughter of Sir Robert de
Halghton (d.1303) and she died c. 1366 in her dower house at Acton". No
source is quoted for this marriage.
In Collections for a History of Staffordshire Volume: VII Part II, there is
"A History of the Family of Swynnerton of Swynnerton, and of the younger
branches of the same family settled at Eccleshall, Hilton, and Butterton" by
the Hon. and Rev. Canon Bridgeman.
Bridgman says "A Pedigree in the Huntbache MSS. (Vol. II., p. 67a) gives as
the wife of Sir Roger, and the mother of his children, a lady named
Margaret, but from what follows (see p. 39), the name of his widow appears
to have been Matilda.
On page 39 he says "In the meantime, namely, in March, 1357-8, a clerk was
admitted to the Church of Swynnerton on the presentation of the Lady Matilda
de Swynnerton, who claimed the right of patronage for that turn by reason of
holding the third part of the manor of Swynnerton in dower, inasmuch as Sir
Thomas de Swynnerton, who holds two parts of the manor, had already
presented for two turns."
His source for this is stated to be the Lichfield Diocesan Register.
Bridgeman continues "From this it would appear that Sir Roger de
Swynnerton (the Baron) had left a widow Matilda, as well as his son. Sir
Roger, the younger (who predeceased him), for if the Lady Matilda who thus
presented had been the wife of the latter, she would hardly have been in "
seisin." of one-third of the manor of Swynnerton in dower. I think her
allegation that Sir Thomas had already presented twice (perhaps it should be
for the second turn) was not strictly accurate, for I believe he had only
presented once, but her claim was nevertheless a just one, for since her
husband's death the sons of Sir Roger had presented twice, so that it
rightly came to her turn on this occasion."
As you say Cris, CP XII/1 p.586 (j) does not come to any conclusion but just
refers to the paper by the Rev. Charles Swynnerton. Note the discrepancy
between Sir Robert and Sir Thomas de Halghton. There is a IPM from Robert
de Halghton, writ 20 Jan. 32 E1 (No: 198) his heir was his son Thomas aged
15. If Roger de swynnerton was married to a Matilda de Halghton she must
have therefore been a daughter of Robert de Halghton and not of his son
Thomas. From a number of cases quoted in Banco Rolls from Trinity 32 E1
onwards Robert's widow was named Juliana.
Unfortunately none of this answers your question. Just some more pieces of
the Staffordshire jigsaw!
Peter Sutton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c...@windsong.org.uk]
> Sent: 28 November 2005 12:34
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
>
> Thanks enormously for this, Peter - it's an extremely canny
> and persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.
>
> Scanning down, may I just ask - at the real risk of looking a
> gift h.
> in the m. - whether anyone here has seen more in support of
> the proposition that Roger de Swinnerton's w. Maud is a
> Haughton (e.g.
> da. of Sir Thomas Haughton of Haughton - as per Rev. Charles
> Swynnerton, Genealogist (N.S.), vol. xxxi, 69ff.) ? CP cites
> the argument but with reservations and declines to
> incorporate the conclusion (Roger de Swinnerton m. Maud
> Haughton) in its Swynnnerton sequence (XII, Pt. 1, 586).
>
> Many thanks again, Peter - and to Douglas.
>
> Cris
>
Peter Sutton
Yes of course you are correct Will. Too many of the ancestors of Elizabeth
Beke and Robert Swynnerton are unknown, or at least not known to me and
unfortunately marriage certificates in England did not become universal for
another 500 years. I guess we will never know with any degree of certainly
who Sir Nicholas Beke was actually married to.
We don't really know that Ralph Stafford had any more than 1 daughter by
Katherine de Hastang.
But what we do know is that Sir Nicholas had a very close relationship with
Ralph Stafford, he was in his household. In 1361 Prince Lionel of Clarence
was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland, and was accompanied there by a body of
men-at-arms commanded by Ralph Earl of Stafford and others. Nicholas was a
knight in the Earl's retinue.
On 15 March 1351 both Ralph Stafford and Nicholas Beke were appointed
Conservatores Pacis (Keepers of the Peace) for Staffordshire, and they were
both Justices of the Peace for Staffordshire from 30 March 1361 for nearly
every year till Nicholas died.
If Ralph did have another daughter by his first marriage it would not
surprise me if she was married to someone like Nicholas Beke. However, I
would have been more surprised if he had married a daughter from Ralph's
second marriage to Margaret de Audley.
As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang. Given the close relationship between the two
men and the relationship between Elizabeth Beke and Robert Swynnerton I am
inclined to believe it. Will is not. Who knows the truth of the matter.
Peter Sutton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WJho...@aol.com [mailto:WJho...@aol.com]
> Sent: 28 November 2005 14:58
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
>
>
> In a message dated 11/28/2005 4:35:21 AM Pacific Standard
> Time, c...@windsong.org.uk writes:
>
> Thanks enormously for this, Peter - it's an extremely canny
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
But what we do know is that Sir Nicholas had a very close relationship with
Ralph Stafford, he was in his household.
How do we know this again?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
On 15 March 1351 both Ralph Stafford and Nicholas Beke were appointed
Conservatores Pacis (Keepers of the Peace) for Staffordshire, and they were
both Justices of the Peace for Staffordshire from 30 March 1361 for nearly
every year till Nicholas died.
Do we know which Ralph Stafford this refers to with certainty though?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang. Given the close relationship between the two
men and the relationship between Elizabeth Beke and Robert Swynnerton I am
inclined to believe it. Will is not. Who knows the truth of the matter.
This is a mingling of several things here. I did not respond to all of
them. We should seperate what I actually said, from what has been added above.
WJho...@aol.com
As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang.
It is the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire (per Doug) which shows that he married
a dau of Rafe Lord Stafford. That is 425 years not 500 :)
Since this "documentation" occurred two HUNDRED years after the event it
purports to relate, it is, in my opinion, worthless. There is every reason to
suspect the possibility that they simply attached the wrong Ralph Stafford at
this point, giving another royal descent to a person who in fact had none that
we can now point to.
We can sit here today and hypothecize that perhaps they had something then
which has vanished, but then every day, on this list, we are destroying lines
that once were thought to be inviolate. This one is not sacrosanct.
If there really was such a lofty connection, it should be much more obvious
then a visitation 200 years after the fact, and an acknowledgement that a
certain dispensation was not given for some nebulous fourth-degree connection of
some known person.
And the fact the 650 years after, we are still debating it should be
evidence enough that it wasn't apparent then either. I haven't yet seen anything
which destroys the theory that the Ralph Stafford was an entirely different
person.
Will Johnson
Peter Sutton
Sir Nicholas Beke.
For those who wish to pursue more fully the career of Sir Nicholas Beke and
his family I would commend the "Collections for a History of Staffordshire".
This is an ongoing series of publications containing a wealth of material
relating to the county. The series commenced in 1880 and is published by the
Staffordshire Record Society which was known as the William Salt
Archaeological Society prior to 1936. Volume have been published on,
usually, an yearly basis.
Peter Sutton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WJho...@aol.com [mailto:WJho...@aol.com]
> Sent: 28 November 2005 16:41
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
>
>
wjho...@aol.com
So far that text has not been introduced in this thread, but I would have to think that it might shed light on his daughter Jane (Stafford) Beke and her husband Nicholas.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
wjho...@aol.com schrieb:
> And I should point out per "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" the Sir Ralph (not Earl or Lord) de Stafford that I have been stating is shown to be father to this Jane (Joan) has himself an IPM 3 Jul 1410.
>
> So far that text has not been introduced in this thread, but I would have to think that it might shed light on his daughter Jane (Stafford) Beke and her husband Nicholas.
Given that Ralph Stafford (d 1410) left a son and heir, it is very
unlikely (although not impossible) that his IPM would also give details
about one of his daughters.
MAR
mj...@btinternet.com
wjho...@aol.com schrieb:
> And I should point out per "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" the Sir Ralph (not Earl or Lord) de Stafford that I have been stating is shown to be father to this Jane (Joan) has himself an IPM 3 Jul 1410.
Why should credence be attached to this secondary or tertiary work
(dated how many hundreds of years after the "facts" it alleges?) when
Visitations a mere 200 years removed are to be dismissed as
"worthless"?
MAR
Douglas Richardson
You appear to have confused two different men named Ralph [de]
Stafford, both of whom had a Hastang wife. The first Ralph was Sir
Ralph de Stafford, K.G. (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, whose first
wife was Katherine Hastang. The second Ralph was Ralph Stafford (died
1410), of Grafton, Worcestershire, whose wife was Maud Hastang.
Biographies of both men are included by my book, Plantagenet Ancestry
(2004).
Sir Nicholas de Beke's wife, Joan, was a daughter of Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, by his 1st wife, Katherine
Hastang. Living Descendants of Blood Royal withstanding, It is
impossible chronologically for Sir Nicholas de Beke's wife, Joan, to be
the daughter of the other Ralph Stafford (died 1410), who married Maud
Hastang. Ralph Stafford, husband of Maud Hastang, was in the same
generation as Sir Nicholas de Beke's granddaughter, Maud (Swinnerton)
(Peshale) (Ipstones) Savage.
I trust this answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, City
Peter Sutton
Are you referring to Jane (Joan) wife of Sir Nicholas Beke who was the
daughter of Ralph Stafford (who was himself Grandson of Ralph Earl of
Stafford) who died on 1st March 1410 and who was married to Maud Hastang
(born 2nd February 1359) sometime after 22 August 1373 who gave birth to
Jane (Joan) who married Sir Nicholas Beke and gave him 2 children before he
died in 1369, when his Mother-in-Law and their Grandmother was aged 10 years
and unmarried, or does "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" mean another
Ralph Stafford?
John P. Ravilious
I recall that Count d'Angerville often displayed a tendency to
ignore chronology in the lines he published.
It seems there is a similar problem here. Elizabeth de Beke had
daughter Maud de Swinnerton, born ca. 1370 (her own daughters
Christiana and Alice were born ca. 1393 and ca. 1396 respectively).
Elizabeth de Beke herself was married some time before 8 July 1363, as
indicated in the letter of dispensation for their remaining in marriage
cited by Peter Sutton (the Papal exemplication to John do Cabrespino,
papal nuncio in England, permitting this action was dated at Avignon on
8 July 1363). It seems most likely that Elizabeth de Beke was born
sometime between say 1345 and 1355: surely no later than the last date,
although possibly before 1345.
Ralph de Stafford, Lord Stafford (1st Earl of Stafford) was born
24 Sept 1301, and married to Katherine de Hastang, his first wife,
before 9 Feb 1326/7. This Ralph was the maternal grandfather of Sir
Ralph de Stafford of Grafton, co. Warwick and Broomsgrove, co.
Worcester who d. in 1410.
If the portrayal by d'Angerville were correct, from the older Ralph
de Stafford to Elizabeth Beke we would then have four generations
(Ralph -> Margaret de Stafford -> Sir Ralph de Stafford -> NN de
Stafford -> Elizabeth Beke) compressed into a timeframe of between 44
years (1301-1345) and 54 years (1301-1355), an average interval of
between 11 and 13.5 years per generation. This appears to be an
untenable position to hold.
From Ralph de Stafford (1st Earl) to Elizabeth Beke, as
granddaughter, we would have average intervals of between 44 and 54
years but over 2 generations: an average of between 22 and 27 years.
This is certainly more reasonable. Further, this agrees with the
pedigrees as shown by Douglas Richardson, and the dispensation text of
1363 provided by Peter Sutton.
It therefore appears that Elizabeth Beke was a granddaughter of
Ralph the Earl, and not of his grandson Sir Ralph.
Cheers,
John
Original message:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: WJhon...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:09:11 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sat, Nov 26 2005 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
<< The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723]. >>
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Kitchen", pg 496-499, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
states that this Elizabeth Beke is the granddaughter not of Sir Ralph
who d
1372, but rather of Ralph de Stafford of Grafton, Broomsgrove,
Worcester (by
his wife Maud de Hastings) who d 1 Mar 1410
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Why should credence be attached to this secondary or tertiary work
(dated how many hundreds of years after the "facts" it alleges?) when
Visitations a mere 200 years removed are to be dismissed as
"worthless"? >>
First there is no such thing as a tertiary source.
Second, it does not derive its information *from* a secondary source.
It states the link from the IPM
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<<
You appear to have confused two different men named Ralph [de]
Stafford, both of whom had a Hastang wife. >>
No *I* have not. I stated my source, and its source.
The confusion, is not mine. If the secondary sources are confused, reciting
more secondary sources does nothing to clear the air.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com schrieb:
> In a message dated 11/28/05 10:36:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Why should credence be attached to this secondary or tertiary work
> (dated how many hundreds of years after the "facts" it alleges?) when
> Visitations a mere 200 years removed are to be dismissed as
> "worthless"? >>
>
> First there is no such thing as a tertiary source.
There's no such thing as third-hand information? Each post here about
a secondary soruce is itself a tertiary source :)
> Second, it does not derive its information *from* a secondary source.
> It states the link from the IPM
Then it is, at best, a secondary source. There's no shame in that per
se: the printed Calendars of IPMs are perhaps best considered secondary
sources (which makes me think your source is a tertiary source anyway).
However, it is a source known to contain other errors, so it is far
from perfect. Additionally, other issues have been raised in this
thread which, by dint of logic, call this source into serious question
in respect of its statement about Jane Stafford's father.
It would be interesting to see what the 1410 IPM has to say that could
shed light on this.
Cheers
Michael
WJho...@aol.com
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
<< Maud Hastang
(born 2nd February 1359 >>
Maud was not born, but rather baptised on 2 Feb 1358/9
dau of John Hastings of Leamington House, Warwick
"Living Descendents of Blood Royal", Vol 2, [sub] "Kitchen", pg 496-499 ;
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
<< Maud Hastang
(born 2nd February 1359) sometime after 22 August 1373 >>
Between 20 Aug 1373 and 24 Feb 1374/5
per www.genealogics.org
WJho...@aol.com
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
<< Maud Hastang
(born 2nd February 1359) sometime after 22 August 1373 who gave birth to
Jane (Joan) who married Sir Nicholas Beke and gave him 2 children before he
died in 1369, >>
Can you share with us what source states his death year ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
solely of the papal dispensation, it now appears, based on John's presentation of
the chronological argument, that Elizabeth Beke, wife of Robert de
Swynnerton, Knt, could not be descended in the way Living Descendents of Blood Royal,
Vol 2, "Kitchen", pg 496-499 shows it.
In the absence of any additional *relevant* documentation I have now placed
her as the grandaughter of Ralph, 1st Earl of Stafford d 1372.
Will Johnson
Peter Sutton
that the wife of Nicholas Beke and the mother of Elizabeth Beke, was married
to Sir Nicholas by 30 March 1347.
At a plea of Assize taken at Lichfield before Hugh Huls and Roger Horton,
with whom was associated Thomas Heuster, Justices assigned, etc., on the
Tuesday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula 9 H. IV -
"...............The jury stated that as regarded the manor of Teyne, one
Nicholas Beek, chivaler, the grandfather of Matilda the plaintiff, and whose
heir she was, viz. father of Elizabeth, mother of the said Matilda, was
formerly seised in demesne as of fee of the manor, and by his deed which was
given in evidence, and which was dated from Teyne the Friday after the Feast
of the Annunciation 21 E.III, had granted it to one John Beek, the parson of
Chekeley, and the said John Beek, being so seised of the manor, had
reconveyed it to the said Nicholas, and to one Joan, late his wife, and to
the heirs of their bodies, and after the deaths of Nicholas and Joan, the
said manor of Teyne descended to one Elizabeth, as their daughter and heir
...................."
Peter Sutton
mj...@btinternet.com
J. Sardina
It has been quite a long time since this posting, but I would like to know if there are any alternatives to the wife of Nicholas Beke and mother of Elizabeth.
Looking through the wikipedia article on John de Ipstones, it gives a footnote on his lawsuit against Matilda Swynnerton.
It mentions that John claimed that Matilda was illegitimate and therefore could not inherit Beke properties.
The reference for the footnote takes us a Collections for a History of Staffordshiere, listing Extracts from Plead Rolls, p. 169
https://archive.org/details/collectionsforhi13staf/page/168/mode/2up?view=theater
It has a footnote commenting on John's claim, which may have been that Matilda was illegitimate because her parents were within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, but the summary does not explain how, or if that was true. It seems that the bishop of Coventry was going to decide on the matter.
J. Sardina