C.P. Addition: Alice Beauchamp, wife of Thomas le Boteler, Lord Sudeley
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 418 identifies the wife of Sir Thomas
le Boteler, 4th Lord Sudeley (and mother of his children), simply as
Alice:
"He married, on or before 18 July 1385, Alice."
Alice's maiden name is not given in the main text, even though the
author clearly had access to the reliable account of the Boteler
family published in 1838 in Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica,
vol. 5, pg. 11. The Coll. Top. et Gen. account reads as follows:
"The wife of this Thomas Boteler was Alicia, daughter of Sir John
Beauchamp of Powyke, Knt., by whom he had issue four sons, John,
William, Thomas, and Ralph, and four daughters, Elizabeth, Jane,
Margaret, and Eleanor. All of the sons except Ralph died issueless,
and two of the daughters, Margaret and Eleanor, died unmarried."
Coll. Top. et Gen. cites the following source for this information:
"Coll. R. Glover Som. Vinc. AA. 315."
Besides the identification of Alice le Boteler's parentage, we are
given two additional children of this couple, namely Margaret and
Eleanor, both of whom were ignored by Complete Peerage.
Curiously, Complete Peerage reveals in a footnote that "it has been
stated that she [Alice] was da. of Sir John Beauchamp of
Powick." [Reference: C.P. 12 (1) (1953): 418, footnote k]. However,
no sources whatsoever are given for this statement. So one is left to
wonder who and whenever it was stated that Alice, wife of Thomas le
Boteler, was a Beauchamp. The author then proceeds to discredit the
Beauchamp connection by referring to a mangled record in the Patent
Rolls in which Sir Ralph Boteler, son of Thomas and Alice le Boteler,
is called "uncle" of Elizabeth Beauchamp, daughter of Sir William
Beauchamp, of Powick. Complete Peerage states: "These facts cannot be
made to tally with the account of Beauchamp of Powick given by
Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i, p. 249."
That the published Patent Rolls item cited by Complete Peerage
contains a manifest error was caught in recent time by Chris Phillips,
of England, who took it upon his himself to examine the original
record. His review of the original shows that Sir Ralph Boteler [son
of Thomas and Alice] was actually called "kinsman" [consanguinei] to
Elizabeth Beauchamp of Powick in the original record, and that it was
Walter Beauchamp who was called her "uncle" [Auunculi]. Walter
Beauchamp was in fact Elizabeth Beauchamp's uncle and Ralph Boteler
was in fact her near kinsman.
As for evidence that Alice, wife of Thomas le Boteler, was a Beauchamp
of Powick, her identity and parentage are indicated by no less than
three published visitation records:
1. Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 2
(H.S.P. 14) (1879): 563-565 (Misc. Peds.) (Cooke pedigree: "Sr Thomas
Butler. = Alice d. of John Beauchamp of Powick.").
2. Harvey et al., Vis. of Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669
(H.S.P. 19) (1884): 162-163 (Bray pedigree: "Thomas Butler Baron of
Sudley = Allice d. and heire of John Beauchampe of Powick.").
3. Benolte et al., Vis. of Surrey 1530, 1572 & 1613 (H.S.P. 43)
(1899): 219-221 (Vincent pedigree: "Sir Thom. Botteler Knt. =3D Allice
d. of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick Knt.").
Amazingly, all of these records were in print at the time Complete
Peerage published its account of the Boteler family, and all were
simply ignored or suppressed.
As for direct evidence of Alice's maiden name, I've elsewhere learned
that a contemporary seal of Alice le Boteler, Lady Sudeley, has
survived, which seal displays the arms of Boteler of Sudeley impaling
Alice's own arms, Beauchamp of Powyk. The seal is described below:
Reference: Source: Report on the MSS of Lord de L'isle & Dudley 1
(Hist. MSS
Comm. 77) (1925): 149:
"1410, February 5. - Indenture whereby John Lonseforde, abbot of
Robertsbridge, demises at farm to Alice, widow of Sir John
Dalyngregge, part of a meadow called Frerenmede in Iwehurst. Seal:
round, 1 1/4 inch, impaling, Boteler of Sudley, quarterly two bendlets
and a fess chequy between six crosses patee fitchee, and Beauchamp of
Powyk, a fess between six martlets. Between the shield and border
three lizards or crocodiles. SIGILLVM DNE. ALICIE DE BOTELER DNE. DE
SUYDLE. (See Archaeologia lxv. Plate xxxiii., 10)." END OF QUOTE.
It is regretable indeed that Complete Peerage gave the account of the
Boteler family in Coll. Top. et Gen. such short shift. Had more
attention been paid to its statements, the author of Complete Peerage
would surely have found that its identification of the various Boteler
wives was in fact correct.
We are often told that Complete Peerage is much more reliable in its
later volumes, even if the earlier volumes have their flaws.
However, since the Boteler account is found in the next to the last
volume published of Complete Peerage, it gives one pause before
accepting that statement at face value. Needless to say, we all makes
mistakes.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 418 identifies the wife of Sir Thomas
> le Boteler, 4th Lord Sudeley (and mother of his children), simply as
> Alice:
>
> "He married, on or before 18 July 1385, Alice."
>
> Alice's maiden name is not given in the main text, even though the
> author clearly had access to the reliable account of the Boteler
> family published in 1838 in Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica,
> vol. 5, pg. 11.
Dear Douglas
Is this the same account that gives John Norbury a knighthood he never
held while alive? If so, I would not class it as reliable.
> The Coll. Top. et Gen. account reads as follows:
>
> "The wife of this Thomas Boteler was Alicia, daughter of Sir John
> Beauchamp of Powyke, Knt., by whom he had issue four sons, John,
> William, Thomas, and Ralph, and four daughters, Elizabeth, Jane,
> Margaret, and Eleanor. All of the sons except Ralph died issueless,
> and two of the daughters, Margaret and Eleanor, died unmarried."
>
> Coll. Top. et Gen. cites the following source for this information:
>
> "Coll. R. Glover Som. Vinc. AA. 315."
Are you able to say what this source actually is? As a random string
of letters and numbers, it possessed no mystical inherent reliability.
Suppression requires a motive. What do you suppose that motive to
have been in CP's case?
>
> As for direct evidence of Alice's maiden name, I've elsewhere learned
> that a contemporary seal of Alice le Boteler, Lady Sudeley, has
> survived, which seal displays the arms of Boteler of Sudeley impaling
> Alice's own arms, Beauchamp of Powyk. The seal is described below:
>
> Reference: Source: Report on the MSS of Lord de L'isle & Dudley 1
> (Hist. MSS
> Comm. 77) (1925): 149:
>
> "1410, February 5. - Indenture whereby John Lonseforde, abbot of
> Robertsbridge, demises at farm to Alice, widow of Sir John
> Dalyngregge, part of a meadow called Frerenmede in Iwehurst. Seal:
> round, 1 1/4 inch, impaling, Boteler of Sudley, quarterly two bendlets
> and a fess chequy between six crosses patee fitchee, and Beauchamp of
> Powyk, a fess between six martlets. Between the shield and border
> three lizards or crocodiles. SIGILLVM DNE. ALICIE DE BOTELER DNE. DE
> SUYDLE. (See Archaeologia lxv. Plate xxxiii., 10)." END OF QUOTE.
>
> It is regretable indeed that Complete Peerage gave the account of the
> Boteler family in Coll. Top. et Gen. such short shift. Had more
> attention been paid to its statements, the author of Complete Peerage
> would surely have found that its identification of the various Boteler
> wives was in fact correct.
This assertion would have more credibility if you addressed some of
the weaknesses identified in the concurrent thread on this issue;
otherwise it remains a circular argument. I am surprised at your
apparent habit of ignoring any evidence suggesting your assertions
might not be correct, and of frequently failing to address or
acknowledge your mistakes while castigating others for theirs - I'm
sure you don't intend this, but I'm afraid it comes across very
badly. At last count, we are waiting for you to address:
(1) WAR's notes on inheritance by the half-blood;
(2) the "spanner" on Eve de Clavering's marriages;
(3) the heraldic and other evidence on Eve's relationship with James
de Audley;
(4) the problems with the assertion that Elizabeth Butler was a
Norbury
(I think that's it, but I may have lost count)
>
> We are often told that Complete Peerage is much more reliable in its
> later volumes, even if the earlier volumes have their flaws.
> However, since the Boteler account is found in the next to the last
> volume published of Complete Peerage, it gives one pause before
> accepting that statement at face value. Needless to say, we all makes
> mistakes.
Indeed; thank you for raising such apparent discrepancies when you
come across them. I really appreciate them and admire your ability to
sniff out contentious stuff - long may it continue. At the same time,
try not to turn into Dan Brown - it makes you look small, and you
don't need to belittle others for your research to be useful.
Kind regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 418 identifies the wife of Sir Thomas
> le Boteler, 4th Lord Sudeley (and mother of his children), simply as
> Alice:
>
> "He married, on or before 18 July 1385, Alice."
>
> Alice's maiden name is not given in the main text, even though the
> author clearly had access to the reliable account of the Boteler
> family published in 1838 in Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica,
> vol. 5, pg. 11. The Coll. Top. et Gen. account reads as follows:
>
> "The wife of this Thomas Boteler was Alicia, daughter of Sir John
> Beauchamp of Powyke, Knt"
The History of Parliament 1386-1421, published 1992 (Vol 2, p 162, sub
Beauchamp) identifies Alice, wife of Sir John Dallingridge and widow
of Sir Thomas Butler of Sudeley, as the daughter of Sir John Beauchamp
of Powick, and sister of Sir William (d c1421) - i.e. contrary to
Harl. Soc. Pub. 19, she was not heir of her father; this is made even
more explicit at page 458, sub Butler, in the entry for her first
husband, so, again, the acceptance of this identification has been in
print for a fair while now.
MA-R
taf
> On 10 Mai, 18:20, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "Coll. R. Glover Som. Vinc. AA. 315."
>
> Are you able to say what this source actually is? As a random string
> of letters and numbers, it possessed no mystical inherent reliability.
The first part is Collection of Robert Glover, Somerset Herald. I
don't know about Vinc. A.A. 315, probably some indication of
manuscript/volume and pp.
> > As for evidence that Alice, wife of Thomas le Boteler, was a Beauchamp
> > of Powick, her identity and parentage are indicated by no less than
> > three published visitation records:
Not necessarily independent.
>
> > 1. Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 2
> > (H.S.P. 14) (1879): 563-565 (Misc. Peds.) (Cooke pedigree: "Sr Thomas
> > Butler. = Alice d. of John Beauchamp of Powick.").
>
> > 2. Harvey et al., Vis. of Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669
> > (H.S.P. 19) (1884): 162-163 (Bray pedigree: "Thomas Butler Baron of
> > Sudley = Allice d. and heire of John Beauchampe of Powick.").
>
> > 3. Benolte et al., Vis. of Surrey 1530, 1572 & 1613 (H.S.P. 43)
> > (1899): 219-221 (Vincent pedigree: "Sir Thom. Botteler Knt. =3D Allice
> > d. of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick Knt.").
>
> > Amazingly, all of these records were in print at the time Complete
> > Peerage published its account of the Boteler family, and all were
> > simply ignored or suppressed.
>
> Suppression requires a motive. What do you suppose that motive to
> have been in CP's case?
This is not the first we have seen this accusation, but it is and has
always been flawed. It attacks the integrity of the researchers
without cause. Specifically, it leaves out other options, such as
that they were simply overlooked. (I can't say that if I was writing
an article on the Botelers I would necessarily look at any of the
above counties/pedigrees.) Or perhaps they were deemed so unreliable
as to not merit comment (which is neither ignoring nor suppressing,
but carrying out critical scholarly research).
taf
mj...@btinternet.com
> On May 10, 11:55 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > On 10 Mai, 18:20, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Coll. R. Glover Som. Vinc. AA. 315."
>
> > Are you able to say what this source actually is? As a random string
> > of letters and numbers, it possessed no mystical inherent reliability.
>
> The first part is Collection of Robert Glover, Somerset Herald. I
> don't know about Vinc. A.A. 315, probably some indication of
> manuscript/volume and pp.
Thanks, taf. Dugdale sometimes cites Glover's material (but the ODNB
says he noted Glover was not infallible). Of course the real problem
here is that, without chasing up the specific reference, one cannot
easily tell what the underlying document is - it may be primary or not
(although Glover had a reputation for working from primary material,
this often involved transcription, and he also collected the works of
others). ODNB adds that after Glover's death in 1588, his papers were
dispersed by sale, and "are now scattered through Britain and North
America"...
Michael A-R
WJhonson
Will Johnson
Brad Verity
> Dear Douglas
[snip]
> I am surprised at your
> apparent habit of ignoring any evidence suggesting your assertions
> might not be correct, and of frequently failing to address or
> acknowledge your mistakes while castigating others for theirs -
I'm not.