Joan Clopton, wife of Sir Walter Walcot and Sir Roger de Beauchamp

[Swanson, Scott]

Joan Clopton, wife first of Sir Walter Walcot of Gunton [in Erpingham], Norfolk, next of (Sir) Roger de Beauchamp of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, who might have been alive as late as 1395, has been assigned a medley of parents. Most recently, a number of accounts, including Douglas Richardson’s Plantagenet Ancestry, have tagged her as a daughter of Walter Clopton. Other internet sites take that affiliation further and make her the daughter of Walter Clopton and Alice Fitzhugh of Chapperly [in Wickhambrook], Suffolk.

The evidence that she was the daughter of [a] Walter Clopton is presumably found in Richardson’s footnotes, but since some of that material is beyond my reach, I have been unable to find it. Apparently Complete Peerage XIV, the additions and corrections, offers relevant evidence. My library, alas, stops at the two volumes XIII.

I’d be happy to know what evidence it is that ties her to Walter Clopton and whether her parents can be more precisely identified.

My thanks for your help, and best wishes to you.

Scott Swanson
sswa...@butler.edu

[Douglas Richardson]

Scott ~

Here is a list of five sources which identifies the parentage of Joan Clopton, wife of Walter de Walcot and Roger de Beauchamp, Knt.

1. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 120 (author identifies Joan, wife of Sir Walter de Walcot and Sir Roger Beauchamp, as “daughter and heir of William, 2d son of Sir William Clopton”), 122–123.

2. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 136–137 (sub Steyngreve) (author identifies Joan, wife of Roger de Beauchamp, as “daughter of William Clopton”).

3. Rye, Some Rough Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 79–80 (author identifies Joan, wife of Walter de Walcote, as “daughter of William Clopton”), 86–88.

4. Harvey et al., Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 214–217 (1563 Vis.) (Paston ped.: “Roger Beauchamp of Bletsoe = Joane da. of William Clayton or Claxton”).

5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp).

The last source, Roskell, says that Joan Clopton was "probably" the mother of Roger Beauchamp, Knt. I believe that is correct. Certainly the visitation cited above identifies her as Roger's mother. Also we know that Roger Beauchamp was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire in Sept. 1362 (aged 13 in 1375, 17 in 1380, 21 in 1383). Walter de Walcot, Joan's first husband, was last known to be living in 1355. So the chronology is works fine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Watson]

Dear Scott,

You can download a pdf copy of Complete Peerage, vol. 14 from here:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?from=fhd&dps_pid=IE7471204

All the other CP volumes can be downloaded from https://books.familysearch.org/

CP disagrees with Douglas on the parentage of Roger, son and heir of Sir Roger Beauchamp.

In case you are wondering what CP 14 says: Addition to CP. vol. 2, p. 45, add note (ax): Roger Beauchamp m. 2ndly, Joan, da. and h. of Sir Walter Clopton, widow of Sir Walter Walcot of Gunton, Norfolk (Hist. Parl. 1386-1421, vol. ii, p. 154). Joan cannot have been mother of his h., who was b. in 1362, since Sir Walter did not die until 1366 (Rye, Norfolk Families, 1911, p. 971)
Complete Peerage, vol. 14 (1998), p. 75, sub. Beauchamp of Bletsoe.

Best regards,

John

[wbld....@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:27:53 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Scott ~
>
> Here is a list of five sources which identifies the parentage of Joan Clopton, wife of Walter de Walcot and Roger de Beauchamp, Knt.
>
> 1. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 120 (author identifies Joan, wife of Sir Walter de Walcot and Sir Roger Beauchamp, as “daughter and heir of William, 2d son of Sir William Clopton”), 122–123.
>
> 2. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 136–137 (sub Steyngreve) (author identifies Joan, wife of Roger de Beauchamp, as “daughter of William Clopton”).
>
> 3. Rye, Some Rough Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 79–80 (author identifies Joan, wife of Walter de Walcote, as “daughter of William Clopton”), 86–88.
>
> 4. Harvey et al., Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 214–217 (1563 Vis.) (Paston ped.: “Roger Beauchamp of Bletsoe = Joane da. of William Clayton or Claxton”).
>
> 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp).
>
> The last source, Roskell, says that Joan Clopton was "probably" the mother of Roger Beauchamp, Knt. I believe that is correct. Certainly the visitation cited above identifies her as Roger's mother. Also we know that Roger Beauchamp was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire in Sept. 1362 (aged 13 in 1375, 17 in 1380, 21 in 1383). Walter de Walcot, Joan's first husband, was last known to be living in 1355. So the chronology is works fine.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas,

Shouldn't this be categorised as a 'working theory'?

William Acton

[Swanson, Scott]

Thanks for your kind replies.

I'm still puzzled. Plantagenet Ancestry (2011) III:116 states that Joan was the daughter of Walter de Clopton. Four of the five sources below say she was the daughter of William de Clopton.

Do we know who her father was?

sgs




________________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL [gen-medieval-bounces+sswanson=butle...@rootsweb.com] on behalf of wbld....@gmail.com [wbld....@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:13 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Joan Clopton, wife of Sir Walter Walcot and Sir Roger de Beauchamp

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Adrian]

Does this help a bit:

Here is the text from C.P. Vol 2 p 45 (Beauchamp) and amendments in Vol
14 [text]^ deleted and [text]* added. The effect is to move Joan Clopton
as wife of (Sir) Roger Beauchamp the son to the 2nd wife of Roger
Beauchamp the father.

ROGER BEAUCHAMP, grandson and h., being s. and h. of Roger B. [by his
1st wife(__)(note ax)]*, who d. v.p., 1373/4 [his wife was granted
letters of admin., 15 May 1374, Harl. Soc., Visit. Suffolk. 1561, N.S.,
vol. 2, p. 23] s. and h. ap. of the 1st Baron. He was [b. at Bletsoe,
bap. 14 Aug. 1362, and was]* never sum. to Parl., nor were any of his
descendants. He was aged 17 in 1380, and made proof of his age ([1374]^
[1384]*) 7 Ric. II, when he had livery of all his lands, viz. Bletsoe,
co. Bedford, Bloxharn and Spelsbury, Oxon, and Lydiard Tregoz, Wilts. He
was [a knight]^ [knighted by 18 Feb. 1393]*. In 1395 he attended the
King into Ireland, [in 1399, M.P. for Beds]*. [He m. Joan CLOPTON. He d
3 May 1406]^. [He m. Mary (NN). He d. 13 May 1406, will dat. 1406, PCC
11 March.]*

[Note (ax) Roger Beauchamp m. 2ndly, Joan, da. and h. of Sir Walter
Clopton, widow of Sir Walter Walcot of Gunton, Norfolk (/Hist. Parl/.

1386-1421, vol. ii, p. 154). Joan cannot have been mother of his h., who

was b. in 1362, since Sir Walter did not die until 1366 (Rye, /Norfolk
Families/, 1911, p. 971)]*


Adrian

On 02/10/2017 17:54, Swanson, Scott wrote:
> Joan Clopton, wife first of Sir Walter Walcot of Gunton [in Erpingham], Norfolk, next of (Sir) Roger de Beauchamp of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, who might have been alive as late as 1395, has been assigned a medley of parents. Most recently, a number of accounts, including Douglas Richardson’s Plantagenet Ancestry, have tagged her as a daughter of Walter Clopton. Other internet sites take that affiliation further and make her the daughter of Walter Clopton and Alice Fitzhugh of Chapperly [in Wickhambrook], Suffolk.
>
> The evidence that she was the daughter of [a] Walter Clopton is presumably found in Richardson’s footnotes, but since some of that material is beyond my reach, I have been unable to find it. Apparently Complete Peerage XIV, the additions and corrections, offers relevant evidence. My library, alas, stops at the two volumes XIII.
>
> I’d be happy to know what evidence it is that ties her to Walter Clopton and whether her parents can be more precisely identified.
>
> My thanks for your help, and best wishes to you.
>
> Scott Swanson
> sswa...@butler.edu
>

[Vance Mead]

Is this the Walter Clopton who was Chief Justice of King's Bench in the 1390s?

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Scott, John, and Adrian ~

There appears to be no question that Joan de Clopton married Sir Walter de Walcote (living 1355), of Walcott, Gunton, and Little Snoring, Norfolk, and Roger de Beauchamp (the younger), Knt. (died 1374). The only question is if Joan de Clopton was the mother of Sir Roger de Beauchamp's son and heir, Roger, born in 1362.

Sir Walter de Walcote presented to the church of Gunton, Norfolk in 1352. Reference: Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 122.

Sir Walter de Walcote and Joan his wife were involved in a Norfolk fine dated Hilary term 1354. See the following weblink for the original fine:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_166/IMG_0139.htm

Walter de Walcote was living 6 July 1355. Reference: Cal. Patent Rolls, 1354–1358 (1909): 209, which is available at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079323;view=1up;seq=221

In 29 Edward III [1355-1356] Walter de Walcote, knight, and Thomas de Walcote, clerk, had license to grant the advowson of the church of Hempstead by Ingham to John de Derby, clerk, and John de Chikewell of London, the said Walter retaining lands in Walcott, Gunton, and Snoring, Norfolk. Online reference:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7575274

Sir Roger de Beauchamp and Joan, widow of Sir Walter de Walcote, were evidently married before 1372, in which year he presented to the church of Gunton, Norfolk. Reference: Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 123.

Sir Roger de Beauchamp died shortly before 15 May 1374, when administration on his estate was granted to his widow, Joan.

Joan was still living 1 July 1395 (date of fine). See the following weblink for the original fine:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_168_176-181/IMG_0307.htm

Walter Rye, Some Rough Materials for a History of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 79–80, 86-88 gives a rather good overview of the records which concern this family, including some of the items cited above. Among other things, he includes a record involving Sir Walter de Walcote and Sir John de Norwich dated June 1355.

On pages 79-80, he quotes an "old pedigree" which reads in part: "Sir Walter de Gunton, a strong and handsom knight, who, in his youth, married one Adelina, and by her had an only daughter and heir, maried to Sir Walter de Walcote, Knt., from whom came Walter de Walcote, who maried Joane, daughter of William Clopton. They had issue four daughters and heirs, of whom the 2nd, Margaret, was maried to Sir Robert Berney, Knt., in the time of King Edward III." END OF QUOTE.

Elsewhere I find that Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 120 gives the following additional information:

"Sir Walter de Gunton, by Adelicia his wife, left a daughter and heir, Milecentia, who brought it [the manor of Gunton] by marriage to Sir Walter de Walcot, whose son, Sir Walter, marrying Joan, daughter and heir of William, 2d son of Sir Sir William Clopton, left 4 daughters and coheirs; Margaret, the wife of Sir Robert Berney of Wichingham, relict of Roger de Welesham; Elizabeth, wife of Ralph Bray, or rather of William Wylton of Wichampton in Norfolk; Catherine, of John Dorward, Esq.; and Margery, a nun, at Carhow abbey near Norwich. Joan, after the decease of her husband, Walcot, married Sir Roger Beauchamp; and on May 15, 1374, letters of administrations of all the goods, &c. of Sir Roger Beauchamp were granted to her." END OF QUOTE.

The above information may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=k9wvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA120

I don't have access to Rye, Norfolk Families, 1911, p. 971, which allegedly states that Walter de Walcote died in 1366. If someone has access to this book, perhaps they can quote exactly what document Mr. Rye cites to prove this statement. Since Complete Peerage does not cite corresponding contemporary documentation, Mr. Rye's statement may well be in error. The records cited above indicate only that Sir Walter de Walcote was living in 1352, 1354, 1355, and 1355-56.

In answer to Adrian's comment, Complete Peerage is wrong to assign Joan de Clopton as a wife of Sir Roger de Beauchamp the elder, who died in 1380. My research shows that Sir Roger de Beauchamp the elder was surviving by his 2nd wife, Margaret de Carew (died 1394), widow of Sir Thomas de Grandison, K.G., 4th Lord Grandison. Inasmuch as Joan de Clopton was still living in 1395, she obviously can not be either the wife or the widow of the elder Sir Roger.

In answer to Scott's question, as I indicated in my first post in this thread, the various available sources indicate that Joan de Clopton was the daughter of William de Clopton, not Walter de Clopton.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Scott, John, and Adrian ~

As a followup to my earlier post just now, I've found the following additional information regarding Sir Walter de Walcote, the first husband of Joan de Clopton.

On 26 Feb. 1351 Sir Walter de Walcote acknowledged that he owed Thomas de Brembre, clerk, a debt of 50 marks; to be levied etc. in Norfolk. Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349–1354 (1906): 349.

In 1355 Sir Walter de Walcot presented to the church of Hempstead, Norfolk.
Reference: Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 9 (1808): 308–312.

Walter de Walcote was still living 30 October 1363, when he was granted reimbursement of his expenses as a knight of the shire for Norfolk. Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360–1364 (1909): 556-558. See the following weblink:

http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarofcloser11grea#page/558/mode/2up

Given that Sir Walter de Walcote was living 30 October 1363, it is impossible for his wife, Joan de Clopton, to have been the mother of Sir Roger de Beauchamp born in 1362.

[John Higgins]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Scott, John, and Adrian ~
>

> I don't have access to Rye, Norfolk Families, 1911, p. 971, which allegedly states that Walter de Walcote died in 1366. If someone has access to this book, perhaps they can quote exactly what document Mr. Rye cites to prove this statement. Since Complete Peerage does not cite corresponding contemporary documentation, Mr. Rye's statement may well be in error. The records cited above indicate only that Sir Walter de Walcote was living in 1352, 1354, 1355, and 1355-56.
>

Walter Rye, Norfolk Families, 1911, should be accessible to you, as the FHL has a copy on microfilm (film 359136). The FHL also has a digital copy of part of the book, but only families starting with the letters A through M and ending at page 582.

> In answer to Adrian's comment, Complete Peerage is wrong to assign Joan de Clopton as a wife of Sir Roger de Beauchamp the elder, who died in 1380. My research shows that Sir Roger de Beauchamp the elder was surviving by his 2nd wife, Margaret de Carew (died 1394), widow of Sir Thomas de Grandison, K.G., 4th Lord Grandison. Inasmuch as Joan de Clopton was still living in 1395, she obviously can not be either the wife or the widow of the elder Sir Roger.
>

There's some confusion here regarding the three Roger Beauchamps (actually there were four, but the first is not pertinent to this discussion):
1. Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. 1380)
2. Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. [vp] 1374)
3. Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. 1406)

CP does NOT say that Joan Clopton was a a wife of the 1st Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. 1380), nor does Adrian's note say that. CP 2 said that Joan was the wife of the 3rd Sir Roger (d. 1406), but CP 14 corrected that to say that she was the wife of the 2nd Sir Roger (d. 1374), but not the mother of the 3rd Sir Roger (d. 1406).

> In answer to Scott's question, as I indicated in my first post in this thread, the various available sources indicate that Joan de Clopton was the daughter of William de Clopton, not Walter de Clopton.
>

So, for the record it appears that DR is now clarifying that his RPA and MCA books are in error on two specific points:
1) Joan was the daughter of William de Clopton, not Walter de Clopton as stated in RPA and MCA.
2) Joan was not the mother of the 3rd Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. 1406) as stated in RPA and MCA.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:12:31 PM UTC+2, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> I don't have access to Rye, Norfolk Families, 1911, p. 971, which allegedly states that Walter de Walcote died in 1366. If someone has access to this book, perhaps they can quote exactly what document Mr. Rye cites to prove this statement. Since Complete Peerage does not cite corresponding contemporary documentation, Mr. Rye's statement may well be in error. The records cited above indicate only that Sir Walter de Walcote was living in 1352, 1354, 1355, and 1355-56.

I have a CD copy. The page has the entry for Walcote, and cites a pedigree in "Norris (p.1183)" wherein:
(1) Walter Walcote, patron of Wallington in 1302, father of (i.a.)
(2) Alexander Walcote, lord there in 1315, d. 1341, father of (i.a.)
(3) Sir Walter Walcote, s. and h., vix. 1355, who by his wife Milicent, d. and h. of Walter de Gunton, had the manor of Gunton, was father of (besides a d. Margaret, wife of Thomas de Windham of Crownthorpe) a son,
(4) Sir Walter Walcote, d. 1366, who by Joan, d. of Walter de Clopton, afterwards wife of Sir Roger Beauchamp, had four d. and co-h.,
(5) (a) Elizabeth, married Ralph de Bray of Wickhampton.
(b) Catherine, married John Durward.
(c) Margery, a nun at Carrow
(d) Margaret, married Sir Robert Berney of Witchingham, who had the manor of Gunton with her.

[deca...@aol.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:27:53 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Scott ~
>
> Here is a list of five sources which identifies the parentage of Joan Clopton, wife of Walter de Walcot and Roger de Beauchamp, Knt.
>
> 1. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 8 (1808): 120 (author identifies Joan, wife of Sir Walter de Walcot and Sir Roger Beauchamp, as “daughter and heir of William, 2d son of Sir William Clopton”), 122–123.
>
> 2. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 136–137 (sub Steyngreve) (author identifies Joan, wife of Roger de Beauchamp, as “daughter of William Clopton”).
>
> 3. Rye, Some Rough Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 79–80 (author identifies Joan, wife of Walter de Walcote, as “daughter of William Clopton”), 86–88.
>
> 4. Harvey et al., Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 214–217 (1563 Vis.) (Paston ped.: “Roger Beauchamp of Bletsoe = Joane da. of William Clayton or Claxton”).
>
> 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp).
>
> The last source, Roskell, says that Joan Clopton was "probably" the mother of Roger Beauchamp, Knt. I believe that is correct. Certainly the visitation cited above identifies her as Roger's mother. Also we know that Roger Beauchamp was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire in Sept. 1362 (aged 13 in 1375, 17 in 1380, 21 in 1383). Walter de Walcot, Joan's first husband, was last known to be living in 1355. So the chronology is works fine.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>

The fifth source given, 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp), is absolutely correct. Joan Clopton was assuredly the mother of Sir Roger Beauchamp. We have to give another kudos to our late friend, Professor J.S. Roskell!

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Andrew ~

Thank you for sharing this information with the newsgroup. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Swanson, Scott]

My thanks again to you all. It appears that Rye himself named Joan's father both Walter and William. Blomefield (1808) is the most precise in stating that she was the daughter and heir of William son of Sir William Clopton. Yet, So far as my cursory search goes, the William Cloptons who appear as her father in various websites also had sons who themselves had sons which means Joan would not have been the heir of her father in those families. It seems to me, then, that from the evidence cited, apart from his name, Joan's father remains unidentified.

Scott
sswa...@butler.edu
________________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL [gen-medieval-bounces+sswanson=butle...@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Douglas Richardson [royala...@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:15 PM

To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Joan Clopton, wife of Sir Walter Walcot and Sir Roger de Beauchamp

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:16:17 AM UTC-6, deca...@aol.com wrote:

< The fifth source given, 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 < (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp), is absolutely correct. Joan Clopton was
< assuredly the mother of Sir Roger Beauchamp. We have to give another kudos to
< our late friend, Professor J.S. Roskell!

Roskell is wrong. Joan de Clopton's first husband, Sir Walter de Walcote, was still living 30 October 1363, when he was granted reimbursement of his expenses as a knight of the shire for Norfolk. Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360–1364 (1909): 556-558. Elsewhere it appears that Mr. Rye, a noted Norfolk historian, reports that Sir Walter de Walcote died in 1366.

Given that Sir Walter de Walcote was living in 1363 and probably died in 1366, it is impossible for his wife, Joan de Clopton, to be the mother of Sir Roger de Beauchamp's son and heir, Roger, who was born in 1362.

[D. Spencer Hines]

It seems there are some folks here who *very much* want Joan de Clopton
Walcote Beauchamp to be certified as the mother of Sir Roger de Beauchamp
[1362 (allegedly) - 1406].

An Important Question Should Be -- Why??

What, If Anything, Does She Bring With Her?

DSH

Audentes Deus Ipse Juvat

"Douglas Richardson" wrote in message
news:054644f6-3c95-4d39...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:16:17 AM UTC-6, deca...@aol.com wrote:

< The fifth source given, 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386-1421 2 (1992):
< 154-156 < (biog. of Sir Roger Beauchamp), is absolutely correct. Joan

< Clopton was assuredly the mother of Sir Roger Beauchamp. We have
< to give another kudos to our late friend, Professor J.S. Roskell!

Roskell is wrong. Joan de Clopton's first husband, Sir Walter de Walcote,
was still living 30 October 1363, when he was granted reimbursement of his
expenses as a knight of the shire for Norfolk. Reference: Cal. of Close

Rolls, 1360-1364 (1909): 556-558. Elsewhere it appears that Mr. Rye, a

[mk]

Out of curiosity, where did the 1362 date come from?

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
wrote:

[John Higgins]

The HOP article on Sir Roger Beauchamp (d. 1406) says explicitly that he was born 14 Sept 1362 at Bletsoe. Presumably that can be verified, if necessarily, by consulting the sources listed in the HOP article.

BTW Roskell was not the author - or even necessarily the editor - of the HOP article in question. Roskell was one of three co-editors of this volume of HOP, and the author of this article was "C. R." - Carole Rawcliffe, another of the co-editors.

To be fair the article says that Sir Roger Beauchamp's mother was "probably" Joan Clopton. (This is the language quoted by DR earlier in this thread which he then said was "correct" until he later changed his mind.) But the article also includes a footnote (overlooked in the earlier posts in this thread) saying that Joan "can only have been his mother or stepmother" (referring to the subject of the article, Sir Roger Beauchamp who d. 1406).

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-6, mk wrote:
< Out of curiosity, where did the 1362 date come from?

My research indicates that Roger de Beauchamp the younger was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire and baptized 14 August 1362. This specific date comes from his Proof of Age which was taken in 1384. The proof of age states that Roger was then "21 years and more, having been born at Bletenesho [Bletsoe] and baptised in the church there on Sunday after St. Laurence [i.e., 14 August], 36 Edward III." The proof of age may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol15/pp368-386

There are two dates for Saint Laurence, 10 August [Laurence, martyr] and 3 Feb. [Laurence, Archbishop]. I believe the first date 10 August is the correct saint's day. If so, then Roger de Beauchamp was born 14 August 1362.

Elsewhere my files indicate that Roger de Beauchamp was aged 13 in 1375 and 1376, 17 or 18 in 1380, 20 in 1384. These respective ages come from various inquisitions post mortem.

The first age is taken from the IPMs dated Nov. 1375 add c.Feb. 1376 for his cousin, Thomas de Grandison, Knt., 4th Lord Grandison, which IPM may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol14/pp129-143

The second age is taken from an IPM dated 1380 for his grandfather, Sir Roger de Beauchamp, which IPM may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol15/pp77-93

The third age comes from a later IPM dated 1384 for his grandfather, Sir Roger de Beauchamp, which IPM may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol15/pp368-386

The 1384 IPM states that young Roger de Beauchamp was "aged 20 years and more on 22 March last [1383]", or born 22 March 1363.

A birthdate of 22 March 1383 for Roger obviously disagrees with the date provided by Roger's own proof of age. In this case, I would give more weight to Roger's proof of age.

In any event, Roskell is wrong to say that young Roger de Beauchamp was born 14 September 1362, and that his mother was probably Joan de Clopton. Neither statement appears to be correct. Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 45 is also wrong to assign Joan de Clopton as his own wife.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:26:14 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-6, mk wrote:
> < Out of curiosity, where did the 1362 date come from?
>
> My research indicates that Roger de Beauchamp the younger was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire and baptized 14 August 1362. This specific date comes from his Proof of Age which was taken in 1384. The proof of age states that Roger was then "21 years and more, having been born at Bletenesho [Bletsoe] and baptised in the church there on Sunday after St. Laurence [i.e., 14 August], 36 Edward III." The proof of age may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol15/pp368-386

...
> In any event, Roskell is wrong to say that young Roger de Beauchamp was born 14 September 1362 ...

Perhaps the author of the HOP article based the calculation of Roger's birth date on the testimony of the third set of witnesses at the proof of age, "Robert Parentyn, aged 43 years and more, and Richard Ledere, aged 60 years and more, agree and say that John Parentyn, Robert’s father, was buried on Thursday after the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the same year, and Richard was at the burial, and the chaplain of Bletenesho told them of the birth of Roger." (The feast of the Nativity is celebrated on September 8, which was a Thursday in 1362. The agreement among the witnesses appears to be that Roger was already 21 years old at the time of the inquisition at the beginning of December 1383, even though they state somewhat contradictory information about the exact date of his birth and baptism.)

[deca...@aol.com]

In this case, which statement by Douglas Richardson should be given more weight within the span of 24 hours?

(1) 5. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 154–156 (biog. of Sir Roger

Beauchamp).

The last source, Roskell, says that Joan Clopton was "probably" the mother of
Roger Beauchamp, Knt. I believe that is correct. Certainly the visitation
cited above identifies her as Roger's mother. Also we know that Roger
Beauchamp was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire in Sept. 1362 (aged 13 in 1375,
17 in 1380, 21 in 1383). Walter de Walcot, Joan's first husband, was last
known to be living in 1355. So the chronology is works fine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Or

(2) Roskell is wrong. Joan de Clopton's first husband, Sir Walter de Walcote, was

still living 30 October 1363, when he was granted reimbursement of his
expenses as a knight of the shire for Norfolk. Reference: Cal. of Close
Rolls, 1360–1364 (1909): 556-558. Elsewhere it appears that Mr. Rye, a noted
Norfolk historian, reports that Sir Walter de Walcote died in 1366.

Given that Sir Walter de Walcote was living in 1363 and probably died in
1366, it is impossible for his wife, Joan de Clopton, to be the mother of Sir
Roger de Beauchamp's son and heir, Roger, who was born in 1362.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Regardless of whether Roger de Beauchamp was actually born 14 September 1362, the HOP article on Sir Roger de Beauchamp (d. 1406) was authored by “C.R.” – Carole Rawcliffe. It would be a miscarriage of justice to assign blame for any errors in dates or parentage to Professor Roskell!

The calculation of the date of birth of young Roger de Beauchamp could be argued from the view of the third set of witnesses at the proof of age, as previously mentioned.

[mk]

Well this would seem to nail it down. He couldn't have been over 21 at his
proof of age and been Joan's son unless we have the wrong death date for
her former husband.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
wrote:

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nothing is nailed down here.

That death date for Sir Walter de Walcote seems to be quite fungible.

...And there are lots of other moving pieces in this puzzle -- as regards
dates.

DSH

Audentes Deus Ipse Juvat

"mk" wrote in message
news:mailman.1609.1507223...@rootsweb.com...

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:21:33 PM UTC-6, Jan Wolfe wrote:
< Perhaps the author of the HOP article based the calculation of Roger's birth
< date on the testimony of the third set of witnesses at the proof of age,
< "Robert Parentyn, aged 43 years and more, and Richard Ledere, aged 60 years
< and more, agree and say that John Parentyn, Robert’s father, was buried on
< Thursday after the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the same year, and Richard
< was at the burial, and the chaplain of Bletenesho told them of the birth of
< Roger." (The feast of the Nativity is celebrated on September 8, which was a
< Thursday in 1362. The agreement among the witnesses appears to be that Roger
< was already 21 years old at the time of the inquisition at the beginning of
< December 1383, even though they state somewhat contradictory information about < the exact date of his birth and baptism.)

Dear Jan ~

Thank you for your comments. Always appreciated.

The statement you cite in Roger de Beauchamp's proof of age indicates that Roger de Beauchamp was born on or before 15 (not 14 September) 1362. Roger's birth could have taken place that week or even within the month. We are not told the date of birth, only that an announcement of his birth was made to the two men when they attended a funeral (at least one witness attended the funeral, I assume the other man did too). If the two men were members of that parish, the birth presumably took place within the week. But if the men were from outside the parish and were merely attending a funeral of a loved one or a friend, the birth could have taken place several weeks earlier.

The statement of the first witness, John Heywode, in the proof of age is much more specific. This witness testified that Roger de Beauchamp was born at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, and was baptized there 14 August 1362. That is roughly within a month of 15 September 1362, which fits the other testimony.

[Jan Wolfe]

I agree.

Perhaps the most definitive of the witness statements in this case is the last set:

"William Coppelewe, aged 41 years and more, and Robert Ammory, aged 50 years and more, agree and say that Agnes, William’s wife, was buried at Bletenesho on Thursday after St. Laurence in the same year, and Robert was at the burial, and there they were told of the birth by the rector of the church and others."

Since August 10 (Feast of St. Laurence) was a Wednesday in 1362, this statement implies that Roger was born on or before August 11, 1362. I think that all of the other witness statements can be described as consistent with this one.

I don't think that any of the other sources cited in footnote 1 of the HOP article are relevant to the birth date question, so perhaps the author of the HOP article made a calculation based on one set of witnesses without carefully considering the others (or even relied on the calculation of someone else). With the internet resources available to us today, these calculations are much easier to make than they would have been at the time the article was written.

So, back to the original question, it seems there is agreement now that if Joan's first husband was still alive after 1362 and she was still married to him, she could not have been the legitimate mother of Roger Beauchamp.

This agrees with the correction stated in CP14 (p. 75, correcting p. 45 of CP2 about "Roger Beauchamp, grandson and h., being s. and h. of Roger B., who d. v.p., s. and h. ap. of the 1st Baron."):

"line 3, after 'B' add 'by his 1st wife (___) (ax)
note (ax) Roger Beauchamp m. 2ndly, Joan, da. and h. of Sir Walter Clopton, widow of Sir Walter Walcot of Gunton, Norfolk (Hist. Parl. 1386-1421, vol. ii,