Dudley/le Despenser
Kennwalrus
I've just learned, *via* Deja News, that, some six weeks ago, Nat Taylor passed
along, in good faith, an old and egregious error of mine, which I'm anxious to
correct at once.
In an early draft of my notes on the baronial Sutton-Dudleys, which I believe I
gave him in 1993 or '4, I stated that John Sutton V (1380-1406) is "said to
have x'd {1} Alice le Despenser; dismissed in _TG_ for lack of ev; if so,
perhaps a ch x'age, *sans* consummation. X ?{2}, ..."
Perfectly correct, except in one howling respect: it's John's FATHER, John
Sutton _IV_, who has repeatedly been married off by earlier compilers to Alice
le Despenser. John Sutton _V_ married Constance Blount, and -- as far as I
know -- nobody but me has ever suggested otherwise. It seems that I, like
Dugdale, succumbed to confusion over that string of six John Suttons in a row.
*Mea maxima culpa* ...
Alice le Despenser, if indeed she existed, and if indeed she was affianced to
John Sutton IV, was nevertheless not the mother of John Sutton V. His mother
was Joan [ ], tentatively identified in *The Genealogist* as an Arundel.
(Or a d'Arundel.) A piece of potential evidence as to her identity that no-one
seems to have commented on is that Humphrey Dudley esq., son -- not, as all
earlier pedigrees seem to make him, brother -- of John Sutton VI, married in
1448 Alianore de Ros, apparently of Hamlake; in order to do so, the couple
received a papal dispensation for 3rd and 4th degree consanguinity. Humphrey's
ancestry is known in all lines for several generations back, except for Joan [
]; Alianore's is less well worked out. Even so, a careful comparison of
what *is* known of the two _Ahnentafeln_ might considerably narrow the
possibilities.
My apologies to anyone led astray -- or simply baffled -- by my
absentmindedness.
Nathaniel Taylor
In article <199803180233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kennw...@aol.com (Kennwalrus) wrote:
>I've just learned, *via* Deja News, that, some six weeks ago, Nat Taylor passed
>along, in good faith, an old and egregious error of mine, which I'm anxious to
>correct at once.
>
>In an early draft of my notes on the baronial Sutton-Dudleys, which I believe I
>gave him in 1993 or '4, I stated that John Sutton V (1380-1406) is "said to
>have x'd {1} Alice le Despenser; dismissed in _TG_ for lack of ev; if so,
>perhaps a ch x'age, *sans* consummation. X ?{2}, ..."
>
>Perfectly correct, except in one howling respect: it's John's FATHER, John
>Sutton _IV_, who has repeatedly been married off by earlier compilers to Alice
>le Despenser. John Sutton _V_ married Constance Blount, and -- as far as I
>know -- nobody but me has ever suggested otherwise.
Thank you, Marshall, for that correction. I had not otherwise seen any
evidence to suggest a different or earlier wife for John Sutton V other
than Constance Blount, but, because I did not want to present it as
uncontested (not having investigated this marriage and its issue myselt),
I noted the additional possible marriage as I had seen it in your
circulated notes. While the question of Roger Dudley's filiation is not,
of course, proved, the removal of this doubt about the Blount-Sutton
marriage makes it a near certainty that Thomas Dudley had this Blount (and
Toledo/Ayala) descent.
Nat Taylor