Constance Blount
Susan Johanson
She was the daughter of Walter Blount (1350-1403) and Sancha de Ayala (
1360-1418). Thank You,
Susan
--
Susan C. Johanson
Springfield, VA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/o/h/Susan-C-Johanson/
....I prefer digging in the past to digging in the yard....
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Could someone post an ancestry for Constance Blount, died 9-23-1432.
> She was the daughter of Walter Blount (1350-1403) and Sancha de Ayala (
> 1360-1418). Thank You,
For Sancha, Tristan has also asked a question along these lines, and so
I will be throwing something together over the next week or so. As to
Walter, I have yet to see an account that I trusted.
taf
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> For Sancha, Tristan has also asked a question along these lines, and so
> I will be throwing something together over the next week or so. As to
> Walter, I have yet to see an account that I trusted.
>
> taf
>
Here is one account which carries a BIG caveat emptor.
Descendants of Stephen le Blount
1 Stephen le Blount
.. +Maria le Blount
2 Robert le Blount d: 1288
.. +Isabel de Odinsels
3 William le Blount b: Abt. 1230 Ixworth, SFK, ENG d: Abt. 1316
.. +Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1249 Elmsley Castle, WOR, ENG
4 Walter le Blount b: Abt. 1270 d: 1322
.. +Johanna de Soddington b: Abt. 1274
5 John le Blount b: Abt. Nov-1338 d: Abt. 1369
.. +Eleanor de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1332 Hocke, SOM. ENG d: 13-Jun-1391
6 Walter Blount b: Abt. 1350 d: 22-Jun-1403 Shrewsbury, ENG
.. +Sancha de Ayala b: Abt. 1360 d: Abt. 1418
7 Constance Blount b: Abt. 1385 Elwaston, DBY, ENG d: 23-Dec-1432
.. +John de Sutton V b: Feb-1379/80 Malpas, ENG d: 28-Aug-1406
7 Thomas Blount d: 1456
.. +Margaret Gresley
Dave
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Here is one account which carries a BIG caveat emptor.
>
> Descendants of Stephen le Blount
>
> 1 Stephen le Blount
> .. +Maria le Blount
> 2 Robert le Blount d: 1288
> .. +Isabel de Odinsels
> 3 William le Blount b: Abt. 1230 Ixworth, SFK, ENG d: Abt. 1316
> .. +Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1249 Elmsley Castle, WOR, ENG
> 4 Walter le Blount b: Abt. 1270 d: 1322
> .. +Johanna de Soddington b: Abt. 1274
> 5 John le Blount b: Abt. Nov-1338 d: Abt. 1369
> .. +Eleanor de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1332 Hocke, SOM. ENG d: 13-Jun-1391
This marriage is a problem. There is no evidence that Eleanor, who was
the heiress of Beauchamp of Hache, married John. Linkewise, I sispect
that the marriage of Stephen le Blount and Maria le Blout is
inaccurate. The Soddington marriage does appear to be supported.
taf
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
> 5 John le Blount b: Abt. Nov-1338 d: Abt. 1369
> > .. +Eleanor de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1332 Hocke, SOM. ENG
d:
> 13-Jun-1391
>
> This marriage is a problem. There is no evidence that Eleanor, who was
> the heiress of Beauchamp of Hache, married John. Linkewise, I sispect
> that the marriage of Stephen le Blount and Maria le Blout is
> inaccurate. The Soddington marriage does appear to be supported.
>
>
> taf
Just checked Burke's E&D and the only mention of a marriage for Eleanor is to
______Meriet and left a son, John Meriet, whose dau and heiress m. a Seymour.
Eleanor's brother John d. in 1360 without issue when the Barony of Beauchamp
of Hacche fell into abeyance between his 3 sisters and coheiresses--Cecily,
Magaret, and Elizabeth.
Dave
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 01/18/1999 11:11:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> > > 5 John le Blount b: Abt. Nov-1338 d: Abt. 1369
> > > .. +Eleanor de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1332 Hocke, SOM. ENG
> >
> > the heiress of Beauchamp of Hache, married John.
>
> ______Meriet and left a son, John Meriet, whose dau and heiress m. a Seymour.
> Eleanor's brother John d. in 1360 without issue when the Barony of Beauchamp
> of Hacche fell into abeyance between his 3 sisters and coheiresses--Cecily,
> Magaret, and Elizabeth.
I am not sure I am following who was heiress to whom here. Maybe you
could put it into a simple descendants chart format.
The claim often made is that Eleanor married John Blount as her second
husband after the death of Meriet, but there is no contemporary support
for this and it has fallen into disfavor.
taf
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
> > Eleanor's brother John d. in 1360 without issue when the Barony of
> Beauchamp
> > of Hacche fell into abeyance between his 3 sisters and
coheiresses--Cecily,
>
> > Magaret, and Elizabeth.
>
> I am not sure I am following who was heiress to whom here. Maybe you
> could put it into a simple descendants chart format.
Sorry my mistake--Elizabeth above should be the Eleanor:
BARONS BEAUCHAMP, OF HACCHE, IN THE CO. SOMERSET
Robert de Beauchamp, d. 1228
-Robert de Beauchamp, d. bef 1251
--Robert de Beauchamp, d. aft 1257
---John de Beauchamp, d. 1283, m. Cicely de Kyme
----John de Beauchamp, d. 1336
-----John de Beauchamp, d. 1343
------John de Beauchamp, d.s.p. 1360
------Cecily de Beauchamp
------Margaret de Beauchamp
------Eleanor de Beauchamp, m. ___ Meriet
-------John Meriet
--------Elizabeth Meriet, m. ___ Seymour
Dave
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 01/19/1999 7:55:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> > > Eleanor's brother John d. in 1360 without issue when the Barony of
> > Beauchamp
> > > of Hacche fell into abeyance between his 3 sisters and
> coheiresses--Cecily,
> >
> > > Magaret, and Elizabeth.
> >
> > I am not sure I am following who was heiress to whom here. Maybe you
> > could put it into a simple descendants chart format.
>
> Sorry my mistake--Elizabeth above should be the Eleanor:
Ah. Yes, that clarifies it. Unfortunately, since John Meriet was the
representative co-heir of his mother, no information about her later
marriage and children (assuming either existed) has been preserved in
the documentation regarding the Hache inheritance.
> BARONS BEAUCHAMP, OF HACCHE, IN THE CO. SOMERSET
>
> Robert de Beauchamp, d. 1228
> -Robert de Beauchamp, d. bef 1251
> --Robert de Beauchamp, d. aft 1257
> ---John de Beauchamp, d. 1283, m. Cicely de Kyme
Early in this pedigree (I think before the last of the Roberts) there is
an heiress that married a Valletort, and then the later Lords descend
from that marriage, and not in the direct male line from the earlier
holders.
taf
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> U...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Here is one account which carries a BIG caveat emptor.
> >
> > Descendants of Stephen le Blount
> >
> > 1 Stephen le Blount
> > .. +Maria le Blount
> > 2 Robert le Blount d: 1288
> > .. +Isabel de Odinsels
> > 3 William le Blount b: Abt. 1230 Ixworth, SFK, ENG d: Abt. 1316
> > .. +Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1249 Elmsley Castle, WOR, ENG
> > 4 Walter le Blount b: Abt. 1270 d: 1322
> > .. +Johanna de Soddington b: Abt. 1274
>
> This marriage is a problem. There is no evidence that Eleanor, who was
> that the marriage of Stephen le Blount and Maria le Blout is
> inaccurate. The Soddington marriage does appear to be supported.
>
> taf
I was given this, does it hold any water or does it leak like a sieve?
1. Rohese and Agnes Blund/Blount.
2. William B. of Ashfield; b. ca. 1185; d. 1228.
3. Cecily de vere.
4. Herbert B. of Ashfield; b. ca. 1165; d. ca. 1188.
5. Agnes Lisle.
8. William B. of Ashfield; d. ca. 1169.
9. Sarah Mountchensy of Edwardstone.
16. Gilbert B. of Ashfield; b. before 1121; d. 1142/66.
17. Alice Colkirke.
32. Robert B. of Walsham, Suffolk; b. before 1065; d. after 1086.
33. Gundred Ferrieres.
Thank you very much,
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
The way I read it, the 1st Lord was John and Cicely's son John who was
summoned to the Parliament as a baron by the style of "Io de Bello Campo [de
Somerset]" on 29 December 1229, 28th of Edward I, and in the 34th of the same
reign was one of the distinguished persons who received the honour of
knighthood with Prince Edward, the king's eldest son, being in the expedition
made into Scotland in that year. In the 8th of Edward II, his lordship was
again in the Scottish wars; and in the 14th of the same king he succeeded to
the very extensive landed possessions of his mother, comprising the manor of
Sturminster-Marshal, in the co. Dorset, a moiety of the manor of West Kington,
in the co. Wilts, of the whole manor of Wadmersh, in the co. Surrey, of the
mano of Bullingham, in the co. Cambridge, also the hamlets of Watweton and
Widecombe. In 2 years afterwards Lord Beauchamp was made governor of the
castle of Bridgewater. In 1333-4 he obtained license to fortify his manor
houses at Hacche, Estokes, and South Hainedon, and to embattle their walls.
[Source: Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages]
Dave
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> Ah. Yes, that clarifies it. Unfortunately, since John Meriet was the
> representative co-heir of his mother, no information about her later
> marriage and children (assuming either existed) has been preserved in
> the documentation regarding the Hache inheritance.
>
The only thing I've seen is in Burke's D&E: "Under the division of the
estates, Cecily had for her share the manors of Hacche, Shipton, Beauchamp,
Murifield, and one-third of the manor of Shipton Mallet, in the co. Somerset,
with certain lands in Sturminster Marshal, in the co. Dorset; the manors of
Boultberry and Harberton, in Devonshire; the manor of Dourton, in
Buckinghamshire; of Little Hawes, in Suffolk, and two parts of the manor of
Selling, in Kent."
Dave
ray montgomery
do you have any info concerning the real wife of blount to perhaps
replace the bad info?
Sincerely
RAY
On 20 Jan 1999 04:17:52 GMT reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) writes:
>Just passing through, but I will have a very detailed article on the
>Seymours
>and the heiress Cecily Beachamp, the Meriotts, etc., to appear in TAG
>this
>year. There is no documentary evidence that shows a Blount
>connection.
>
>pcr
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Reedpcgen
D. Spencer Hines
I hope your eye has mended and that your articles are going well.
Are there any indications that Charles Seymour, the past President of
Yale University, Woodrow Wilson scholar and relative of Diana,
Princess of Wales is related to these Seymours?
Cheers,
Spencer
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For
he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er
so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in
England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not
here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought
with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare [1564-1616]
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Lines 60-67.
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<19990119231752...@ng14.aol.com>...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 01/19/1999 11:55:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> > >
> > > Robert de Beauchamp, d. 1228
> > > -Robert de Beauchamp, d. bef 1251
> > > --Robert de Beauchamp, d. aft 1257
> > > ---John de Beauchamp, d. 1283, m. Cicely de Kyme
> >
> > Early in this pedigree (I think before the last of the Roberts) there is
> > an heiress that married a Valletort, and then the later Lords descend
> > from that marriage, and not in the direct male line from the earlier
> > holders.
>
> summoned to the Parliament as a baron by the style of "Io de Bello Campo [de
> Somerset]"
I am not questioning this. The problem is that, I think between Robert
II and Robert, father of John, you should have a generation with a
daughter (whose name I forget) married to Simon de Valletort.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Just passing through, but I will have a very detailed article on the Seymours
> and the heiress Cecily Beachamp, the Meriotts, etc., to appear in TAG this
> year. There is no documentary evidence that shows a Blount connection.
Does it happen to address the Seymour marriage to the Cockworty heiress?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> hello sir
> do you have any info concerning the real wife of blount to perhaps
> replace the bad info?
(Last I knew) The problem is that we don't know that the info is bad.
We don't know that it is good. We just don't know, because there is
nothing to support it, and nothing to support any other conclusions.
THere is simply no information.
taf
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
I imagine it is possible since entries in Burke's Dormant & Extinct give very
little on the 2 Roberts.
"Robert de Beauchamp, who d. before 1251, and was s. by his son,
Robert de Beauchamp. Of this feudal baron nothing is known beyond his being
engaged against the Welsh with Henry III, and his founding the priory of
Frithelstoke, in the co. Devon. He was yet living in 1257, and was s. by his
son,"
Is there a contempory source for your thought??
Dave
Todd A. Farmerie
This entire Beauchamp family was reconstructed in a Somerset historical
publication, based on contemporary documentation. I just don't have the
reference handy, so I don't recall the details. (Benson also touched on
it in the Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries articles on the Valletort
families.) Anybody else have this information?
taf
Henry Sutliff
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
The identification of the mother of Walter Blount (d. 1403) as Eleanor de
Beauchamp dates at least as far back as 350 years ago and the
Visitations. This brings about a question which might have me sent back
to Medieval Genealogy 101, but my knowledge of Family Arms is not
particularly strong.
In the Visitation of Shropshire (1623) included with the various
pedigrees of Blount (including one with Alianora, dau. and Heir of
Johannes de Bellocampo of Hache in Somerset), are mention of family arms.
Among those is Blount of Mapledurham (Harl. 1396) and among the quartely
of eight is Beauchamp.
My question concerns the arms. Accepting that the connection of Walter
Blount to Eleanor de Beauchamp originates from possible errors or
falsifications at the time of the Visitations, would the Beauchamp
appearance in the Arms be contemporaneous with this or would this have an
earlier origin? Also how extensive are the errors in Family Arms or
falsifications for other contemporary families? Thanks for the
assistance.
Henry Sutliff
Reedpcgen
sketch. For other details, see John Batten, "The Barony of Beauchamp of
Somerset," _Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society's Proceedings_
(1890) 36:20-59, available on microfilm through the FHL. See also, "Two
Beauchamp Registers," _Somerset Record Society_ 35, Sanders' _English Baronies_
51, CP 2:48-50, etc.
I. Robert the Constable, or Robert Fitz Ivo, a principal tenant of Robert,
Count of Mortain, held Stoke-under-Hamden and Hatch, at Domesday. He was
succeeded by:
II. Robert [I] "de Beauchamp" (fl. 1092-1113). He was succeeded by:
III. Robert [II] de Beauchamp (fl. 1158), who was succeeded by:
IV. Robert [III] de Beauchamp (d. 1195). It was a daughter of this Robert who
married:
V. [daughter] = Simon de Vautort/Valletort (d. by 1199), son of Hugh fitz
Richard de Vautort.
VI. Robert [IV] de Beauchamp, b. abt. 1190 (of majority 13 John), d. by 1251,
went by his mother's surname, m. Juliana, dau. of the widow Alice de Colville.
VII. Robert [V] de Beauchamp, d. by 25 Oct. 1263, m. abt. 1245 Alice Mohun,
widow of William de Clinton and dau. of Reynold [II] Mohun by Hawise fitz
Piers.
VIII. John [I] de Beauchamp, of Hatch, co. Somerset, d. 1283, m. Cecily de
Vivonne/Vivonia, dau. and coh. of William de Vivonne by Maud de Ferrers (one of
seven daughters and coheirs of William, Earl of Derby), by whom important
inheritance came into this family (see my last article in TAG Oct. 1998).
IX. John [II] de Beauchamp, b. 25 July 1274, d. 1336, m. Joan [said to be
Chendiut, but of this I've seen no factual evidence], d. 9 Feb. 1327. This
John is considered 1st Lord Beauchamp [barony by writ].
X. John [III] de Beauchamp, 2nd Lord, m. Margaret de St. John, dau. of John,
Lord St. John, by his wife Isabel de Courtenay [for this, see my arguments and
explanation in TAG Oct. 1998].
XI. John [IV] de Beauchamp, 3rd Lord Beauchamp of Somerset [Hatch], died
without issue, when his two sisters Cecily and Eleanor de Beauchamp were his
heirs and the lands divided between Cecily and her nephew John de Meriet [only
child of Eleanor]. Note, there is no third sister, or lands which ended up in
the hands of any Blount, as lands would have if a Blount had married into this
inheritance. The lands are thoroughly accounted for.
Hope this clarifies things a little.
pcr
Nathaniel Taylor
>The identification of the mother of Walter Blount (d. 1403) as Eleanor de
>Beauchamp dates at least as far back as 350 years ago and the
>Visitations. This brings about a question which might have me sent back
>to Medieval Genealogy 101, but my knowledge of Family Arms is not
>particularly strong.
>
>In the Visitation of Shropshire (1623) included with the various
>pedigrees of Blount (including one with Alianora, dau. and Heir of
>Johannes de Bellocampo of Hache in Somerset), are mention of family arms.
>Among those is Blount of Mapledurham (Harl. 1396) and among the quartely
>of eight is Beauchamp.
>
>My question concerns the arms. Accepting that the connection of Walter
>Blount to Eleanor de Beauchamp originates from possible errors or
>falsifications at the time of the Visitations, would the Beauchamp
>appearance in the Arms be contemporaneous with this or would this have an
>earlier origin? Also how extensive are the errors in Family Arms or
>falsifications for other contemporary families? Thanks for the
>assistance.
Various Blounts bore a quartering (vair or vairy of indeterminate colors)
which have been identified as coming from Beauchamp of Hatch but this may
not in fact be the case. I will post more on this next week.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> XI. John [IV] de Beauchamp, 3rd Lord Beauchamp of Somerset [Hatch], died
> without issue, when his two sisters Cecily and Eleanor de Beauchamp were his
> heirs and the lands divided between Cecily and her nephew John de Meriet [only
> child of Eleanor]. Note, there is no third sister, or lands which ended up in
> the hands of any Blount, as lands would have if a Blount had married into this
> inheritance. The lands are thoroughly accounted for.
Is John de Meriet specifically called "only child of Eleanor"? The
sources I have seen have only called him "son and heir". The former
would clearly exclude a Blount marriage, while the latter needn't.
taf
U...@aol.com
reed...@aol.com writes:
>
> IV. Robert [III] de Beauchamp (d. 1195). It was a daughter of this Robert
> who
> married:
>
> V. [daughter] = Simon de Vautort/Valletort (d. by 1199), son of Hugh fitz
> Richard de Vautort.
>
> VI. Robert [IV] de Beauchamp, b. abt. 1190 (of majority 13 John), d. by
1251,
>
> went by his mother's surname, m. Juliana, dau. of the widow Alice de
> Colville.
>
Then where does the Robert d. 1228 in Burke's fit in?? His bio: In 1156-7
accounted the King £6 for a mark of gold, and, in 1162-3 was Sheriff of
counties Somerset and Dorset. In three years afterwards, this Robert, upon
the assessment of the aid for marrying the king's daughter, then levied,
certified his knight's fees, veteri feoffamento, to amount in number to 17,
for which, in the 14th of Henry II, he paid £7, 1s, 8d.
Dave
Reedpcgen
Is John de Meriet specifically called "only child of Eleanor"? The
sources I have seen have only called him "son and heir". The former
would clearly exclude a Blount marriage, while the latter needn't.
taf>>
If my memory hasn't completely failed, he received ALL of the other half of the
Beauchamp lands, but his issue died out, so lands eventually reverted to
Cecily's heirs. If he'd even had sisters, they would have laid claim. Upon
the death of Elizabeth de Meriot (b. 13 Dec. 1386) s.p. the issue of Cecily's
sister Eleanor de Beauchamp became extinct, leaving Roger Seymour SOLE heir of
the barony of Beauchamp. There were Meriot heirs by the male blood, but not by
the blood of Eleanor.
Beware when dealing with sources about the Seymours and this Beauchamp family.
They tend to be highly inaccurate, hence the reason for my article.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>accounted the King £6 for a mark of gold, and, in 1162-3 was Sheriff of
>counties Somerset and Dorset. In three years afterwards, this Robert, upon
>the assessment of the aid for marrying the king's daughter, then levied,
>certified his knight's fees, veteri feoffamento, to amount in number to 17,
>for which, in the 14th of Henry II, he paid £7, 1s, 8d.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
He DOESN'T. People should learn Burke is NOT dependable in these early
centuries. They frequently make mistakes or conduse facts.
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Beware when dealing with sources about the Seymours and this Beauchamp family.
> They tend to be highly inaccurate, hence the reason for my article.
Does your article address the Cockworthy/Seymour marriage?
taf
U...@aol.com
writes:
> Why is it exactly that you are trusting Burke? And does Burke confuse these
> Roberts, and exclude the Robert who took the surname de Beauchamp, though a
> son of Simon?
>
> Burke is a highly inaccurate source for earlier generations! You'd better
> learn that now. Sanders, VCH, CP, etc., are al lfar more reliable.
>
> All my best,
>
> Paul
I'm not blindly trusting anyone, but the only way I find out more reliable
sources is to post and ask, post and ask, etc. etc. etc.. I am not a
professional genealogist, a fact which should not be a surprise to anyone!!
But I do love this stuff and am trying to build, through numerous sources, a
reliable database which I can share with others. Please bear with me as I
learn.
Dave
D. Spencer Hines
Eloquently, Succinctly and Convincingly Stated, By Both Parties.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For
he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er
so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in
England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not
here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought
with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare [1564-1616]
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Lines 60-67.
U...@aol.com wrote in message ...
Dcrdcr4
Constance? She appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle of postings. I
descend from the Beauchamp of Hatch Beauchamp, Somerset. The early generations
are essentially sound. One of the early wives is named Juliana and she is
unidentified. I finally proved she was the daughter and coheiress of a Pain de
Dorton of Dorton, co. Buckingham. You won't see that anywhere in print,
though. Douglas Richardson
By the way, hello, Paul.
John T. Lyman
all...@pacbell.net (G . EDWARD ALLEN) wrote:
>Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>>
>> U...@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Here is one account which carries a BIG caveat emptor.
>> >
>> > Descendants of Stephen le Blount
>> >
>> > 1 Stephen le Blount
>> > .. +Maria le Blount
>> > 2 Robert le Blount d: 1288
>> > .. +Isabel de Odinsels
>> > 3 William le Blount b: Abt. 1230 Ixworth, SFK, ENG d: Abt. 1316
>> > .. +Isabel de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1249 Elmsley Castle, WOR, ENG
>> > 4 Walter le Blount b: Abt. 1270 d: 1322
>> > .. +Johanna de Soddington b: Abt. 1274
>> > 5 John le Blount b: Abt. Nov-1338 d: Abt. 1369
>> > .. +Eleanor de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1332 Hocke, SOM. ENG d: 13-Jun-1391
>>
>> This marriage is a problem. There is no evidence that Eleanor, who was
>> the heiress of Beauchamp of Hache, married John. Linkewise, I sispect
>> that the marriage of Stephen le Blount and Maria le Blout is
>> inaccurate. The Soddington marriage does appear to be supported.
>>
>> taf
If Eleanor de Beauchamp did not marry John le Blount, who was the mother of
Walter Blount, spouse of Sancha de Ayala?