GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-12 > 1007834044


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: Parentage of Roger de Beauchamp, lst Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe
Date: 8 Dec 2001 09:54:04 -0800
References: <5cf47a19.0111291142.2c02850c@posting.google.com>, <000c01c17fd8$7c11f660$adda86c2@xs4all.nl>


Dear Bert ~

Thank you for your good post. As for Roger de Beauchamp's parentage,
it is no more possible for Roger to have been the son of Humphrey,
than he was the son of Giles. For Roger to be a grandson of Walter,
his father would have had to have been born AFTER Giles, not BEFORE.
I estimate Giles was born about 1290, possibly a bit later. There is
simply insufficient time for Roger to be the nephew of Giles.

You seem to be having trouble accepting the fact that there may have
been a clerical error in Roger's will naming his grandfather
correctly. I work with the records of this time period on a day to
day basis. I find errors of this nature regularly. One such error on
which I commented recently concerned the matter of the age of Richard
Berners's daughter and heiress, Margery. This week Chris Phillips
commented on several discrepancies he has found between recorded death
dates and the date for the writ issued after the person's death. The
two often don't agree with each other. The surviving records of this
time period contain many such mistakes.

In Roger de Beauchamp's case, he was greatly advanced in years at the
time he wrote his will and may simply have been confused. At the time
of his death, Roger had a late life second wife and a young minor
grandson living with him. Neither the wife nor the grandson would
have been in a position to catch Roger's mistake, if in fact Roger was
the one who made it. Roger's grandfather William de Beauchamp died
well over 100 years before Roger wrote his will. Neither the wife or
the grandson are likely to have known the grandfather's name.

I trust this information has helped you.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:


(B.M. Kamp) wrote in message news:<000c01c17fd8$7c11f660$>...
> As my PC was (temporarily) infected by a virus I did not react to Douglas'
> interesting posting concerning the parentage of Roger de Beauchamp, lst Lord
> Beauchamp of Bletsoe. I followed the subsequent discussion. In his second
> posting Douglas wrote:
>
> >We know that Walter and Alice had at least five sons, Humphrey
> >(presumably the eldest son, born before 1278, adult by 1299, evidently
> >dead before 1302), Walter (born before 1281, heir at his father's
> >death in 1302), William (born about 1288, heir at his brother,
> >Walter's death), Giles (born say 1290, first appeared in records about
> >1315, heir at his brother, William's death), and Roger. In addition,
> >there were at least three daughters, Eleanor, born 1275 (wife of John
> >le Boteler and John de la Mare), Margaret (wife of Robert de Lisle)
> >and Pernel (possibly married to _____ de Neville).
>
> >The eldest son, Humphrey, was named for Alice de Tony's grandfather
> >and uncle, Humphrey de Bohun. The second and third sons were named
> >for Walter de Beauchamp himself and for his father. The fifth son,
> >Roger, was named for Alice de Tony's father, Roger de Tony.
>
> So far Douglas' second posting.
>
> If we presume with Douglas that Alice de Tony started bearing children in
> 1270/75 I find it remarkable that the second son Walter should have been
> born (well) before 1281 and her third son as late as 1288. Is there any
> evidence for this rather large gap, which removes Giles to born about 1290?
>
> As regards Roger Douglas wrote:
> >As for the chronology of Roger de Beauchamp, as best I can determine,
> >Roger first appeared in the records in the year, 1322, when he
> >accompanied Hugh le Despencer, Earl of Winchester, who was going with
> >the king to Scotland [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1321-1324,
> >published 1904, pg. 187). As such, I estimate that Roger was born in
> >or before 1301, perhaps a bit earlier.
>
> I do not think that at that time a nobleman had to be 21 before going on
> such a mission. Roger may well have been 15 in 1322 and than been born
> around 1307. Roger's father could then very well have been born about 1286.
> It seems then chronologically not impossible that Roger was a son of Giles.
>
> However in his first posting Douglas wrote that Giles and Roger married
> about the same time. In the GEN-MEDIEAVAL archives I found 1329 as date for
> Giles' marriage to Catharine de Bures, but I could not trace the source for
> this date. If Roger were a son of Giles the marriage should have been much
> earlier or alternatively Roger was a son from a previous marriage of Giles.
>
> As regards the onomastic evidence: Alice de Tony named her [first?] son
> Humphrey after her grandfather and (uncle) Humphrey(s) de Bohun. If a son of
> Alice (Giles?) named his son after his grandfather (Roger de Tony) he
> followed exactly the same pattern (naming a [first] son after the boy's
> greatgrandfather). So the fact that Roger had a Tony name does not
> necessarily make him a son of Alice.
>
> In the GEN-MEDIEAVAL archives I also found a reference to Roger's aunt Maud,
> abbess of Godstow Abbey in the period 1337-1339. However it is not clear
> where Maud should be placed in the Beauchamp family. On this point there is
> some onomastic evidence. Alice de Tony named a son after her maternal
> grandfather Humphrey de Bohun. It seems then not unlikely that she named a
> daughter after her maternal grandmother. And Humphrey's wife was Mahaut
> (Maud) de Lusignan. So Maud the abbess fits very well as daughter of Walter
> and Alice. In case Roger were a son of Walter, Maud should have been
> necessarily a sister of Walter, and then probably born around 1240/1250, and
> that would make her 89-99 years old in 1339, which seems to me extremely
> unlikely.
>
> Where do we go from here? I do believe that Roger was Walters grandson as he
> says in his will. I agree with Douglas that it seems unlikely that he was a
> son of Giles. Giles being married twice is of course possible, but only a
> John and a Walter were mentioned as his sons, as has been pointed out in an
> earlier posting. Of Giles brothers William and Walter had no issue. The
> remaining brother is Humphrey, still alive in 1299. He is supposed to be
> dead in 1302, but is that really sure? And is it sure that he was born
> before 1278, as mentioned by Douglas?
>
> Let us suppose that Humphrey was Roger's father. In case Humphrey was the
> oldest son and died before his father, Roger was apparently excluded as
> principal heir of his grandfather Walter. I do not know if this was a
> possiblity at that time. If it is not, Humphrey, adult in 1299, must have
> been a younger brother of Giles. Presuming that adult meant at least 16,
> Humphrey should have been born in or before 1283. We have seen that Alice de
> Tony started having children around 1270/75, so it is not impossible she had
> four sons in 1283 or even earlier (1278). Roger could then have been born in
> the period 1300/1310.
>
> Of course this solution is only a hypothesis, but it fits with Roger being a
> grandson
> of Walter, as Roger's will said.
>
> Douglas, I am looking forward to any new evidence for your theory or for (or
> against) its alternatives.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Bert M. Kamp

This thread: