Discussion:
RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Add Reply
Louise Staley
2006-06-09 01:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
RPA Echingham: 11 states in part:

"Children of Joan Arundel, by William Echingham, Knt.:
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"

On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?

Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).

Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?

Louise

_BIBLIOGRAPHY_
Bannerman, W. Bruce, ed. /The Visitation of Sussex 1530, 1633-4/. Vol.
53, /Visitations Series/. London: The Harleian Society, 1905.

Cooper, William Durant. "The Families of Braose of Chesworth, and Hoo."
/Sussex Archaeological Collections/ 8 (1856): 97-131.

Davidson-Houston, C.E.D. "Monumental Brasses, Part II." /Sussex
Archaeological Collections/ 77 (1936): 130-187.

Gibbs, Vicary, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland,
Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant/. 13
in 14 vols. Vol. 2. London: St. Catherine Press, 1912.

———, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great
Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant/. 13 in 14
vols. Vol. 6. London: St. Catherine Press, 1926.

Greenfield, B.W. "Honywood Evidences, Part III: Sir Edward Arundel of
Aynho, Co. Northampton, Knt." /Topographer and Genealogist/ 2 (1853):
312-336.

———. "Corrections and Additions to Notices of Sir Edward Arundel, Knt."
/Topographer and Genealogist/ 3 (1858): 254-255.

Hall, Spencer. /Echyngham of Echyngham/. London: George Barclay, 1850.

———. "Notices of Sepulchral Memorials at Etchingham, Sussex, and of the
Church at that Place." /Archaeological Journal/ 7 (1850): 265-273.

Malden, Henry Elliot, ed. /The Victoria History of the County of
Surrey/. 4 vols. Vol. 4, /Victoria History of the Counties of England/.
London: Dawsons for the University of London, Institute of Historical
Research, 1912.

Philipott, John. "Finch Genealogy." /Miscelanea Genealogica et
Heraldica/ 1st Series 2 (1876): 325-337.

Suckling, F. H. "Some Notes on Barsham Juxta Eccles, Co. Suffolk." The
Genealogist n.s. 21 (1905): 124-142, 243-250.
Hal Bradley
2006-06-10 22:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Louise,

The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex, ... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William, but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.

Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
_BIBLIOGRAPHY_
Bannerman, W. Bruce, ed. /The Visitation of Sussex 1530, 1633-4/. Vol.
53, /Visitations Series/. London: The Harleian Society, 1905.
Cooper, William Durant. "The Families of Braose of Chesworth,
and Hoo."
/Sussex Archaeological Collections/ 8 (1856): 97-131.
Davidson-Houston, C.E.D. "Monumental Brasses, Part II." /Sussex
Archaeological Collections/ 77 (1936): 130-187.
Gibbs, Vicary, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England,
Scotland, Ireland,
Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or
Dormant/. 13
in 14 vols. Vol. 2. London: St. Catherine Press, 1912.
———, ed. /The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great
Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or
Dormant/. 13 in 14
vols. Vol. 6. London: St. Catherine Press, 1926.
Greenfield, B.W. "Honywood Evidences, Part III: Sir Edward Arundel of
312-336.
———. "Corrections and Additions to Notices of Sir Edward
Arundel, Knt."
/Topographer and Genealogist/ 3 (1858): 254-255.
Hall, Spencer. /Echyngham of Echyngham/. London: George Barclay, 1850.
———. "Notices of Sepulchral Memorials at Etchingham, Sussex, and of the
Church at that Place." /Archaeological Journal/ 7 (1850): 265-273.
Malden, Henry Elliot, ed. /The Victoria History of the County of
Surrey/. 4 vols. Vol. 4, /Victoria History of the Counties of
England/.
London: Dawsons for the University of London, Institute of Historical
Research, 1912.
Philipott, John. "Finch Genealogy." /Miscelanea Genealogica et
Heraldica/ 1st Series 2 (1876): 325-337.
Suckling, F. H. "Some Notes on Barsham Juxta Eccles, Co. Suffolk." The
Genealogist n.s. 21 (1905): 124-142, 243-250.
Louise Staley
2006-06-11 00:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Hal,

Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.

Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).

Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?

Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan Arundel "married
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex, ... leaving
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William, but does not
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned in this source.
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
Hal Bradley
2006-06-11 03:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Louise,

I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.

No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.

This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel & William
Echyngham.

Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
Louise Staley
2006-06-11 03:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Hal,

That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.

As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.

Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.
No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.
This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel & William
Echyngham.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends
at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
John Higgins
2006-06-14 00:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter who
married John Baynton.

So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....

And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <***@bigpond.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Louise Staley
Thanks Hal,
That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.
As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It contains a
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes that
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's son,
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.
No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.
This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel & William
Echyngham.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
Sutliff
2006-06-14 01:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No mention of Baynton in the Hoo bio in Wedgwood either. So?

Hap
Post by John Higgins
One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter who
married John Baynton.
So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....
And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Louise Staley
Thanks Hal,
That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.
As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It
contains
a
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes
that
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's
son,
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.
No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.
This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel &
William
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Echyngham.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks
"Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
Louise Staley
2006-06-14 10:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To everybody who has helped by looking up the references I do not have
access to, thank-you. We can now say definitively that *NONE* of the 17
references cited in PA Echingham: 11 support the statement that Joan
Arundel had a daughter who was the wife of John Baynton.

Further, we can also say that only one of the nine references cited in
PA Baynton:12 claims Joan Arundel was the mother of the wife of John
Baynton and that reference, Davis (1963), is deliberately highly
qualified saying, "If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir
was Joan, daughter of Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the
"if" strongly emphasized as there is thus far no sound documentary
evidence found that she was..." p. 221 (as posted by Hal Bradley 11 June
2006). Apart from the strong hesitation by Davis, it is pertinent to
note that the Visitation of Wiltshire, on which he bases his conclusion,
only says John Baynton's wife was the daughter of William Echingham, no
wife for William Echingham is mentioned.

In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.

I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.

Louise
Post by Sutliff
No mention of Baynton in the Hoo bio in Wedgwood either. So?
Hap
Post by John Higgins
One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family, probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically any daughter who
married John Baynton.
So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's "History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....
And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Louise Staley
Thanks Hal,
That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning John Baynton
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks "Baronies in
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of these, the
information would be appreciated.
As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have now put in a
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I hope to be
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne. However, I
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not itself cited
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel.
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). It
contains
a
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390). Page 249 notes
that
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In 1379 he was
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251 notes Guy's
son,
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.
No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.
This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my earlier post,
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03), should also be
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of Joan Arundel &
William
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Echyngham.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA is a frequent
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can point out which of
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
John Brandon
2006-06-14 16:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louise Staley
In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.
I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.
Louise
Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
that this line is incorrect. But allow me to observe the following:

1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.

2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.
Louise Staley
2006-06-15 07:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Brandon
Post by Louise Staley
In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.
I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.
Louise
Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.
2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.
Actually, I am less interested in the specific line than in the lack of
scholarship in claiming to have reached a conclusion with no evidence.

On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.

Readers of this newsgroup may observe that I and others took a similar
approach with the references on the Beaufort:10 line (the Stradling
controversy). No doubt others will employ a similar approach in
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.

Louise
Peter Stewart
2006-06-15 08:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Louise - this thread has been a very interesting exercise from the
start, and no less so in the conclusion.

With some notable exceptions that most SGM readers will recognise, the study
of British medieval genealogy has descended into a fairly general malaise of
mediocrity over the past 50 years, roughly since the revised edition of CP
was completed. In my view this is mainly because of two complementary kinds
of hyposcrisy - indeed of duplicity - by too many of the people who are
active in this study and ought to be its leading exponents: first, the
self-serving, moral dishonesty of holding oneself to a lower standard than
others - as consistently seen in glaring examples from some SGM
participants, for instance - and secondly the self-satisfied, intellectual
dishonesty of politely respecting, accepting, encouraging and/or colluding
in a lower standard from others than is applied to one's own work, often
just to enjoy an inner glow of superiority - in the much more insidious
manner of some other particpants here, who usually prefer to shoot the
messenger of criticism.

Those who examine online or published work that is offered for personal
credit or promoted for sale to readers new to this field, in the kind of
critical enquiry that you have conducted, are doing a service to everyone
who is interested, as well as helping to ensure better research & analytical
practice in medival genealogy for the future.

Peter Stewart
Post by Louise Staley
Post by John Brandon
Post by Louise Staley
In the next day or so I will write up a post which is in a form for the
corrections website run by Will Johnson.
I would also note that I was unable to sight the Somerset and Dorset
Notes & Queries reference discussed below, however while I will attempt
to do so at another visit to Melbourne this is not a source cited in PA.
Louise
Alright, alright. We get it. You have a bee in your bonnet to show
1) the line was first published in Dr. Faris' versions of the book.
2) Anne Baynton Batt has a whole raft of other, better connections, all
well-proved. Even Mrs. Maverick has another line, through Stukeley,
Fitz-Roger, etc. to Henry II.
Actually, I am less interested in the specific line than in the lack of
scholarship in claiming to have reached a conclusion with no evidence.
On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.
Readers of this newsgroup may observe that I and others took a similar
approach with the references on the Beaufort:10 line (the Stradling
controversy). No doubt others will employ a similar approach in
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.
Louise
m***@btinternet.com
2006-06-15 19:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Louise - this thread has been a very interesting exercise from the
start, and no less so in the conclusion.
With some notable exceptions that most SGM readers will recognise, the study
of British medieval genealogy has descended into a fairly general malaise of
mediocrity over the past 50 years, roughly since the revised edition of CP
was completed. In my view this is mainly because of two complementary kinds
of hyposcrisy - indeed of duplicity - by too many of the people who are
active in this study and ought to be its leading exponents: first, the
self-serving, moral dishonesty of holding oneself to a lower standard than
others - as consistently seen in glaring examples from some SGM
participants, for instance - and secondly the self-satisfied, intellectual
dishonesty of politely respecting, accepting, encouraging and/or colluding
in a lower standard from others than is applied to one's own work, often
just to enjoy an inner glow of superiority - in the much more insidious
manner of some other particpants here, who usually prefer to shoot the
messenger of criticism.
Those who examine online or published work that is offered for personal
credit or promoted for sale to readers new to this field, in the kind of
critical enquiry that you have conducted, are doing a service to everyone
who is interested, as well as helping to ensure better research & analytical
practice in medival genealogy for the future.
Peter Stewart
Indeed; many of us post here in the hope of eliciting just such
critical review.

Louise's work on this particular point is instructive - unfortunately
some other otherwise excellent references works do not assign specific
references to each of their statements (eg HoP, DNB). It would be good
if we could all aspire to this gold standard.

(PS Great to see you posting, Peter; it's been way too long!)

Michael
Peter Stewart
2006-06-15 22:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<***@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:***@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<chomp>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
(PS Great to see you posting, Peter; it's been way too long!)
Thankyou, Michael, and others who have posted similar greetings, but I'm
afraid it is not my intention to stay in the newsgroup.

I quit SGM last year because of disappointment at the reluctance of some
participants to pull their critical weight here, in particular some experts
in British subjects who prefer to wink at errors and blatant ulterior
motives in some others posting in this field, rather than tackle them.

I was having to waste time frequently in research of matters well outside my
own interests, because others would not bother to do their own chores in the
effort to raise standards. I can no longer do this, as time even for my own
preferred research is severly limited.

The excuse sometimes made of not wishing to "stoop to insults" is, of
course, self-righteous clap-trap - targeted insults have always been a
heathy part of public controversy on any subject, not least medieval
genealogy, whereas "ad hominem" attacks are properly in the vein of "He
can't be right because his feet smell and his earlobes are too large" rather
than observations about behaviour, habits and failings directly related to
activities in this forum.

Some people are just coasting here, content to gloat that they are above
such grubbiness or argumentiveness. One of these milksops in particular only
found a critical voice of his own in order to shoot the messenger, and that
was the end for me. I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-15 23:27:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.
As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?

Have you explained why you no longer believe, as you did then, that
"availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people", and that it would bring "more favourable
attention than otherwise"?

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 00:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.
As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?
Have you explained why you no longer believe, as you did then, that
"availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people", and that it would bring "more favourable
attention than otherwise"?
Chris Phillips
Still busy twisting other people's words to make your own inexcusable
predicament seem less invidious.

Read again what I wrote: "availability of this kind of work..." is NOT
THE SAME as "availability of this [particular] work". I continued
"However...", and then made clear that Cawley's work was not
satisfactory as scholarship.

If all of it had been on a level with the Flanders material, it would
have attracted more favourable attention than otherwise BEING PRESENTED
HONESTLY (which I assumed it would be after my comments) as the work of
a try-hard newcomer to the study offered for discussion by others. As a
"major new resource" in its own right, the Mediaval Lands database is a
fiasco.

For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 08:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).
You didn't answer my question - did you not contact him privately to let him
know your opinion about the work had changed (or, indeed, to raise any
concerns you had about its presentation), before attacking the FMG in
public? Would that not have been the bare minimum required by common
courtesy?

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 08:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
For your information, I have contacted Steve Edwards to resign my
membership of the FMG (although I think this may have lapsed anyway).
You didn't answer my question - did you not contact him privately to let him
know your opinion about the work had changed (or, indeed, to raise any
concerns you had about its presentation), before attacking the FMG in
public? Would that not have been the bare minimum required by common
courtesy?
No it would not. I don't owe the FMG anything at all, and in any event I am
not about to be lectured on good manners by someone who distorts my words -
and even Douglas Richardson's - in a vain attempt to exculpate himself from
a shocking blunder that he won't admit.

My first loyalty in the field of medieval genealogy is to truth, not to
persons. However, I was a supporter of the FMG's endeavours from the start,
and have given the foundation the beneifit of my doubts too many times
already.

First I spoke up for them when the bona fides of the initiative was
questioned on SGM at the very start, then I took the trouble to post in
carefully researched detail on their discussion site to kick it along, then
I agreed to be an adviser and provided a good deal of conscientious
reporting for them on submissions, an effort that was somewhat wasted
(especially when an article was published without the revisions I had
pointed out as necessary, adopting references I has given only to gloss over
the purport of these, without even the courtesy of acknowledgement), then
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.

But this Medieval Lands debacle was the last straw, and then for YOU to try
misrepresenting my advice from last July, pretending that this had actually
been followed, prior to a futile attempt to teach me about "common
courtesy"!

You are uncommonly foolish, fatuous and self-righteous.

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 08:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM after
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.
How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.

I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG (and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.

At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 09:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
Post by Peter Stewart
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.
How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.
I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG (and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.
At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.
The only allowance that requires to be made is your admission that you have
sponsored a load of tripe to SGM readers as a "major new resource", despite
knowing for 11 months that this was not up to scratch.

Your efforts at deflecting attention from this are lily-livered and
ineffectual.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 09:17:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
Post by Peter Stewart
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.
How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.
"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately first -
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 09:39:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately first -
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.
I have no way of knowing which of my posts you're referring to. I don't
remember "attacking" you. I try not to make personal attacks even when (as
now) the provocation is considerable.

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 10:16:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
"Any of this" indeed! Since you don't have the elementary shame to keep
quiet over your own imbecilities, perhaps you could explain how it is that
you had "no idea" you had chosen to attack me on SGM without observing the
"common courtesy" of checking your mere impression with me privately
first -
Post by Peter Stewart
precisely the kind of behaviour you now seek to lecture me about.
I have no way of knowing which of my posts you're referring to. I don't
remember "attacking" you. I try not to make personal attacks even when (as
now) the provocation is considerable.
It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred to,
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet again
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).

For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"? If
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.

Your difficulties with me, or mine with you, are quite unimportant &
irrelevant to this matter. The truth is at issue, not your memory or mine.

As for the "provocation" you feel to a personal atack, this is more
self-righteous clap-trap. You have yet to try defending the position you
took on the alleged "major new resource", and you can't prejudice
intelligent readers in your favour by seeking to characterise the style
while you persistently ignore the substance of criticism.

Have your years of participation in SGM taught you absolutely nothing along
these lines from the repeated undoing of other duplicitous posters?

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 10:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred to,
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet again
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).
You accused me of "attacking" you. I say again, I don't remember having done
so.

I don't particularly like being accused of things I haven't done.
Post by Peter Stewart
For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"? If
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.
In the announcement I posted, I tried to be as factual and objective as I
could. I don't see that I actually made any comment either way about the
quality of the work. Perhaps you are reading more into the phrase than I
intended.

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 10:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
It doesn't make the slightest difference which of your posts I referred
to,
Post by Peter Stewart
as this was a mere incident & the present controversy that you are yet
again
Post by Peter Stewart
trying to side-step is not about what was posted last October (or whenever
it was: the point being that if I was "embittered" by it I could have
responded long before now).
You accused me of "attacking" you. I say again, I don't remember having done
so.
I don't particularly like being accused of things I haven't done.
Self-righteous falsehood once again - just because you chose not to remember
an incident does not mean that it didn't happen. I can't remember when the
post was made, but the ludicrously hypocritical content of it was to express
your opinion that Peter Stewart didn't have the same right to express his -
and it was only your unsupported guess that the opinion bothering you was
mine in the first place. As I recall it was in an anomymous post reminding
SGM critics of something they should think ABOUT in a certain context, that
you deceitfully characterised as trying telling them what they should THINK.
You then used this as a pretext to tell me by proxy that I might not express
my views, asserting by this exercise your own right to do so freely.
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
For the time being, once again, have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup
this: Do you still maintain that Cawley's work is a "major new resource"?
If
Post by Peter Stewart
not, have the common courtesy to your readers and explicitly retract this
claim.
In the announcement I posted, I tried to be as factual and objective as I
could. I don't see that I actually made any comment either way about the
quality of the work. Perhaps you are reading more into the phrase than I
intended.
Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish to
maintain was justified? Or have you forgotten the subject line you chose,
along with any other matters that do you no credit in your Pharisaic
self-regard?

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 11:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Self-righteous falsehood once again
[snip]

Your recollection of the post is very inaccurate, but I assume you meant
this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/a5bc77b001b20d73

If that's the one, there is no personal attack there - only a request that
the poster would stop making personal attacks on others - and indeed not
much else that anyone would recognise from the description you have just
posted.
Post by Peter Stewart
Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish to
maintain was justified?
As I said, it was intended to be an objective, factual description. If you
are disagreeing with it, I suspect you must be reading more into it than was
intended.

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 12:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
Self-righteous falsehood once again
[snip]
Your recollection of the post is very inaccurate, but I assume you meant
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/a5bc77b001b20d73
If that's the one, there is no personal attack there - only a request that
the poster would stop making personal attacks on others - and indeed not
much else that anyone would recognise from the description you have just
posted.
False again - you wrote:

"PS In answer to (I presume) Peter Stewart, these attacks on anyone you
perceive as insufficiently hostile to Douglas Richardson really are
unattractive. Please have the courtesy to let us make up our own minds what
we post here. Particularly if you aren't even a subscriber to the
group/list."

The presumption was untested by the "common courtesy" of communicating
privately with me, as you now have the gall to suggest I should have done
with the FMG before criticising them. At the time I had been absent from SGM
for more than two months - and being subscribed is not a qualification for
posting anyway, as this can be done ad lib through Google Groups.

The entire burden of the PS in your message was to exercise your own right
to criticise Peter Stewart out of the blue for allegedly expressing his
opinion, as if this was somehow less appropriate than the expression of
yours because it didn't happen to concord with yours. Self-righteous tripe
from one of the newsgroup's leading Whited Sepulchres.

Nothing that had been expressed in the message you were responding to
presumed to tell other people what they should post, but only what they
should think about _before_ posting if they wished to substantiate their
opposition to the specific matter in it. Once again, you eschew context in
the hope of deceiving readers.
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
Exactly which part of the phrase "major new resource" do you still wish to
maintain was justified?
As I said, it was intended to be an objective, factual description. If you
are disagreeing with it, I suspect you must be reading more into it than was
intended.
You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's work
is a "major new online resource"?

Get on with it.

Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
2006-06-16 12:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's work
is a "major new online resource"?
Get on with it.
I'm sorry, but (exactly as I was pointing out in January), I don't follow
your orders about what to post here.

If my previous posts haven't been clear enough for you to understand, that's
your problem, not mine.

Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 12:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
You won't evade this reckoning by means of a glib and deceptive one-liner.
Instead, try responding in detail to my post repeating your statements of
June 2006 in relation to advice received by you in July 2005. Then answer
the simple question: do you or do you not still maintain that Cawley's
work
Post by Peter Stewart
is a "major new online resource"?
Get on with it.
I'm sorry, but (exactly as I was pointing out in January), I don't follow
your orders about what to post here.
If my previous posts haven't been clear enough for you to understand, that's
your problem, not mine.
Is this a direct quotation from Douglas Richardson, by any chance? He is
much better at this kind of cop-out than you are.

We can ALL SEE that you have not tried to address specific points of
criticism, but only to evade each & every one.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 09:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
finally from exasperation at YOUR ill manners in criticising me on SGM
after
Post by Peter Stewart
I had left the newsgroup and you IMAGINED that you detected me behind
someone else's post but didn't have the "common courtesy" to get in touch
with me & check this, I gave them an ultimatum to chose between having you
as an adviser or me, because I declined to be your colleague from that
point - and to their detriment they chose you, but still I stayed on as a
member ready to help in other ways, including a donation to the library.
How interesting. I had no idea any of this had happened.
I knew there had to be some reason for your bitter hostility to the FMG (and
to me), but I couldn't work out what it was.
At least people now know about the background to this sad affair, and can
make appropriate allowances.
Can you actually read and take in consecutive ideas?

Note that I stayed on as a member of the FMG and made a donation to the
library AFTER the offense I hasd taken at your behaviour.

So your convenient falsehood about my supposed "bitterness" towards the FMG
allegedly stemming from this incident is just more self-serving baloney.

The only "sad affair" here is your espousing the Medieval Lands database as
a "major new resource" when it is patently nothing of the sort. The sad
affair on the FMG website is their ignoring plain advice to the contrary and
misrepresenting Cawley's bumbling work as thorough, competent and important.

Have the courtesy to answer the newsgroup this: Do you still maintain that
Cawley's work is a "major new resource". If not, have the common courtesy to
your readers and explicitly retract this claim. Your difficulties with me
are quite irrelevant to these obligations to the truth.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2006-06-16 04:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Peter Stewart
I only came back to ensure that the appalling garbage of
the Medieval Lands database, promoted as a "major resource" despite advice
to the FMG that it was not up to scholarly standards, should be thoroughly
exposed - the last thing medieval genealogy needs is another "Royalty for
Commoners", and this turns out to be worse.
As a matter of interest, have you contacted Steve Edwards, the secretary of
the FMG, to tell him you have changed your opinion since you recommended
that this material should be published on the FMG website, in its entirety
and without revision?
By the way, there is a further misrepresentation by Phillips here: I
did not recommend that Cawley's work should be "published" on the FMG
website, but rather that under certain conditions his own files should
be HOSTED there, i.e. NOT that these should be elaborately reworked
into new files with copyright in the unwarranted fancywork held by the
FMG.

The difference is equivalent to a distribution arrangement, as per my
advice, of a kind that reputable publishers sometimes undertake for
independents to supply their books & magazines to retail outlets, and
actual publication under the imprint of the distributing publisher, as
if the presentation had been supervised in-house, which is what the FMG
has chosen to do with Medieval Lands.

The bragging about lineages having been "reconstructed" from primary
sources, when in reality these have only been rehashed from secondary
works with some ill-chosen and ill-understood snippets of Latin thrown
in, and with some new discoveries that turn out to be farcical
nonsense, is bad enough from Cawley - but then he obviously doesn't
know any better. The FMG, and Phillips, did.

Peter Stewart
John Brandon
2006-06-15 13:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louise Staley
On the point that the line was published in Dr. Faris' versions of the
book, the author of /Plantagenet Ancestry/ has gone to some trouble to
claim sole authorship and to highlight his original research. There has
never been any suggestion that Mr Richardson did not undertake his own
research on all lines presented in his book and I am surprised this
argument has been raised as a reason for somehow discounting the
appearance of the Baynton line in /Plantagenet Ancestry/.
Of course he could not "re-do" everything. It was extremely
questionable judgment on the part of Faris to include the line, as even
Mr. Hunt in his looniest moments did not endorse that particular
conclusion.
Post by Louise Staley
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.
I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."
John Brandon
2006-06-15 18:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Brandon
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."
Sorry. Didn't quote that correctly. It is actually: "The passion for
setting people right is in itself an afflictive disease. Distaste which
takes no credit to itself is best."

Probably shouldn't have bothered with the correction, however--thereby
showing distaste taking no credit, etc. ...
m***@btinternet.com
2006-06-15 19:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Brandon
Post by John Brandon
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."
Sorry. Didn't quote that correctly. It is actually: "The passion for
setting people right is in itself an afflictive disease. Distaste which
takes no credit to itself is best."
Probably shouldn't have bothered with the correction, however--thereby
showing distaste taking no credit, etc. ...
Nice! You are right, John - it is very easy to fall into the trap of
enjoying being critical for its own sake. To counter that, maybe a
good remedy is a regime of posting one's own original research and
welcoming scrutiny on it.

Regards, Michael
Louise Staley
2006-06-16 00:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by John Brandon
Post by Louise Staley
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.
I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."
Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents
through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.

Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.

Louise
John Brandon
2006-06-16 13:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louise Staley
Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents
through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.
Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.
Congrats -- you've been at work on the two most obviously incorrect
items in the book (Baynton and Stradling). What are you going to
attack next, as an encore? I'd say the great majority of the rest of
the stuff is sound. Two or three wrong lines out of hundreds is a
pretty high rate of accuracy (to my mind, at least).
r***@yahoo.com
2006-06-18 16:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hello Miss Staley,

I sympathize with your efforts, while also thinking that Richardson's
books can be pretty darn helpful, on the whole. I was pleased with his
account of my mother-in-laws ancestor, a Peter Worden of MA in the
second one (Magna Carta one).

One small thing I noticed last year. And I'll have to run on memory
here ; all my genealogy books being packed up at the moment for a move.

It dealt with a Thomas Lovett -- he was on two separate pages
(different places) in the Magna Carta book. In one place he had a wife
named Agnes/Anne Cope , and in the other a wife Anne Danvers. I think
one of the Anns survived and remarried to a Hennage.

I remember thinking it must be the same guy. His parents on both pages
were John Lovett and Elizabeth Botler. I wonder if the two different
Anns didn't confuse someone along the way.

Best wishes,
LJF
Post by Louise Staley
<snip>
Post by John Brandon
Post by Louise Staley
evaluating other lines in the future. I am sorry if specific discussions
of medieval genealogy methodology bores John Brandon as I would have
thought they were of greater pertinence to the newsgroup charter than
many of the posts he is wont to make.
I'm not exactly bored by your procedures, just amused to find you so
zealous in research concerning families unrelated to you. As the late
Miss Marianne Moore noted, "Setting people straight can become an
afflictive disease for some. Distaste which takes no credit to itself
is best."
Only the Baynton part is unrelated. I believe I have Echyngham descents
through Sir Thomas Echyngham and Margaret West as well as through
Elizabeth Echyngham and Richard Wakehurst of Great Dixter. This is why I
have participated in Echyngham threads over many years and provides an
explanation for why I went and looked up all the Echingham references in
/Plantagenet Ancestry/. I was hoping to find more information about the
lines of interest to me. For example, on my line, I am particularly
interested in who is the mother of the Sir William Echyngham who married
Joan Arundel.
Lest it appear I am attempting to suggest it was also not my purpose to
examine the evidence of the Baynton claims, of course it was. For almost
as long as I have posted on the Echynghams I have also posted on my
concerns with genealogical books, purporting to be authoritative, that
lump all their references at the bottom with no indication of what the
argument being mustered from the sources is to support the assertions
being made. In this particular case the sources have been shown not to
even mention the key relationship of the presented line. Therefore
discussion of the Baynton line in PA presents an egregious example of
the pitfalls of not referencing each fact individually in published work.
Louise
Hal Bradley
2006-06-14 04:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Louise, John, et al

The obvious jump to this conclusion is made from these two sources: The 1623
visitation stated that the wife of John Baynton was Joan, daughter of Sir
William Echingham. Banks' "Baronies in Fees" shows that the only wife of Sir
William Echingham was Joan Arundel. Thus, Joan, wife of John Baynton was the
daughter of Joan Arundel. This supposition would be supported by onomastics
since Joan is such a rare name ;)

Since we know that William Echingham had two wives, this leap cannot be
sustained. It is possible that William Echingham had two daughters named
Joan, one who married Rykhill and one who married Baynton. However, without
primary documentation, the Baynton/Echingham line should be considered
broken.

Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
One more of the RPA/MCA references for the supposed Baynton
connection to
Echingham and Arundel can be eliminated. Banks' "Baronies in
Fee", 1:198-9
has a pretty sketchy pedigree for the Echingham family,
probably from a
Harleian MS. It shows Joan Arundel as the [only] wife of Sir William
Echingham and mentions only a single child of Sir William: his son Sir
Thomas. Based on what we know of the Echinghams from other
sources, it's a
very incomplete pedigree, but the key point for this
discussion is that
there is no mention of any daughter at all and specifically
any daughter who
married John Baynton.
So the only remaining unchecked source cited by RPA/MCA for
this connection
is apparently the bio of Sir Thomas Hoo in Wedgwood's
"History of Parliament
1439-1509". I'd be surprised if this item supports the
connection, but I
suppose it's remotely possible....
And of course Louise's invitation to the author of RPA and
MCA to explain
himself is still outstanding....
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Louise Staley
Thanks Hal,
That's 15/17 of the references cited in RPA not mentioning
John Baynton
Post by Louise Staley
and his wife, with only HOP's bio of Thomas Hoo and Banks
"Baronies in
Post by Louise Staley
Fee" still to be checked. If anyone has access to either of
these, the
Post by Louise Staley
information would be appreciated.
As far as the Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, I have
now put in a
Post by Louise Staley
request to the State Library to get it out of storage and I
hope to be
Post by Louise Staley
able to check it next Wednesday when I'm next in Melbourne.
However, I
Post by Louise Staley
would note that no matter what this source says, it is not
itself cited
Post by Louise Staley
to support the statement in RPA that the wife of John
Baynton was the
Post by Louise Staley
daughter of Joan Arundel.
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
I just read through Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir
Richard
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55
(1832). It contains
a
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
biographical notice of Sir Guy Bryan (d. 17 Aug. 1390).
Page 249 notes
that
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Guy Bryan was the executor of Richard Arundel in 1375. In
1379 he was
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
involved with John Arundel, Marshal of England. Page 251
notes Guy's
son,
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William Bryan, and William's wife "Agnes" Arundel.
No mentions of Baynton or Echyngham.
This eliminates one more source. However, as noted in my
earlier post,
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
"Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries" 8:290 (1902-03),
should also be
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
consulted as it may contain evidence for the issue of
Joan Arundel &
William
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Echyngham.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Thanks Hal,
Charlotte Smith has also posted that the Saul reference ends at 1400 and
does not mention the children of Joan Arundel. Therefore we
can now say
that *NONE* of the 14 sources consulted which are cited in
RPA say that
Joan Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married
John Baynton.
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Does anyone have access to the remaining three references?
1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between Sir Richard
Scrope and Sir
Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp. 245-55 (1832). 2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in
Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert Echingham). 3. HOP 1
(1936):466 (biog
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
of Thomas Hoo).
Alternatively, as I requested below, the author of RPA
is a frequent
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
participant in this newsgroup and presumably he can
point out which of
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
his references support his assertion?
Louise
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
The citation to TG 5 (1984): 137 simply states that Joan
Arundel "married
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir William E(t)chingham, Kt., of Etchingham, co. Sussex,
... leaving
Post by Hal Bradley
issue." It does provide death dates for Joan and William,
but does not
Post by Hal Bradley
indicate who their children were. No Bayntons are mentioned
in this source.
Post by Hal Bradley
The citation is to "Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries"
8:290 (1902-03),
Post by Hal Bradley
which may provide further info.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of
Faulstone (in
Post by Hal Bradley
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult
12 of the 17
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Post by Hal Bradley
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access
to any of
Post by Hal Bradley
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter
Joan married
Post by Hal Bradley
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The
Controversy between
Post by Hal Bradley
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
137. 5. N.
Post by Hal Bradley
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families
in Sussex
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Post by Hal Bradley
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post
which, of the
Post by Louise Staley
Post by Hal Bradley
Post by Hal Bradley
remaining five references not yet seen, support his
assertion that the
Post by Hal Bradley
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
Hal Bradley
2006-06-10 22:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Louise,

Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."

Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
snip
Louise Staley
2006-06-11 00:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Hal,

Thank-you for this. I am also in the process of collecting the
references cited in RPA for the Baynton 12. line where the Davis
reference is cited and planned to post further once all the references
for Echingham 11 are collected. However, since you raise this line, I
can report there are 9 references cited for Baynton 12. of which I have
seen seven and you have added an eighth. *NONE* of the seven references
say that Joan Arundel was the mother of the wife of John Baynton and the
eighth is highly qualified and relying on a visitation which does not
mention Joan Arundel either.

The Visitation of Wiltshire, in the Baynton pedigree does say that John
Baynton married "Jana filia Willi Ichingham mil." however, no wife of
"Willi Ichingham" is mentioned and this is the source for the highly
qualified statement in Davis (1963).

I note that Sir William Echingham and Joan Arundel did have a daughter
named Joan who was married to John Rykhill of Eslington and who is
attested as the daughter of Joan in A2A RYE 1462/2, page 280, a primary
source. Despite extensive searching by many people for any references
connected to Echingham, nobody has ever turned up a primary source which
links Baynton and Echingham.

Louise

_REFERENCES_
Crowley, D. A., ed. A History of Wiltshire. 17 vols. Vol. 11: Downton
Hundred, Elstub and Everleigh Hundred, Victoria History of the Counties
of England. London: OUP for the University of London, Institute of
Historical Research, 1980.

———, ed. A History of Wiltshire. 17 vols. Vol. 13: South-West Wiltshire:
Chalke and Dunworth Hundreds, OUP for the University of London,
Institute of Historical Research. London: OUP for the University of
London, Institute of Historical Research, 1987.

Lobel, Mary D., ed. A History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 5:
Bullingdon Hundred, Victoria History of the Counties of England. London:
OUP for the University of London, Institute of Historical Research, 1987.

Page, William, ed. The Victoria History of Hertfordshire. 4 vols. Vol.
3, Victoria History of the Counties of England. London, 1914.

Roskell, John Smith, ed. The House of Commons, 1386-1421. 4 vols. Vol.
4: Biog. of Sir John Roches. London: Alan Sutton Publishing for the
History of Parliament Trust, 1992.

———, ed. The House of Commons, 1386-1421. 4 vols. Vol. 4: Biog. of John
Stourton. London: Alan Sutton Publishing for the History of Parliament
Trust, 1992.

Squibb, G. D., ed. Wiltshire Visitation Pedigrees, 1623. Vol. 105 and
106, Visitations Series. London: The Harleian Society, 1954.
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
snip
John Higgins
2006-06-11 01:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.

This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point. John Brandon
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof." It seems clear that this is a correction
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two publications.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Bradley" <***@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Hal Bradley
Louise,
Walter Goodwin Davis' "Ancestry of Abel Lunt", p. 221, indicates that his
source for this alleged connection is the 1623 visitation. He then states,
"If Sir John Baynton's wife and the mother of his heir was Joan, daughter of
Sir William de Etchingham (I.P.M. 1413-1414), the "if" strongly emphasized
as there is thus far no sound documentary evidence found that she was..."
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
i. THOMAS ECHINGHAM, Knt. [see next].
ii. JOAN ECHINGHAM, married JOHN BAYNTON, Knt., of Faulstone (in
Bishopston), Wiltshire [see BAYNTON 13]"
On a recent visit to the library I was able to consult 12 of the 17
references cited in RPA and can report that *NONE* of them
say that Joan
Arundel was the mother of a daughter who married John Baynton.
Of the remaining 5 references, perhaps someone with access to any of
them could check and post whether they mention a daughter Joan married
to Sir John Baynton?
Outstanding references: 1. Sir N.H. Nicolas, “The Controversy between
Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor”, vol. 2, pp.
245-55 (1832).
2. T.C. Banks "Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 198-99 (sub Robert
Echingham).
3. HOP 1 (1936):466 (biog of Thomas Hoo). 4. TG 5 (1984): 137. 5. N.
Saul “Scenes from a Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex
1280-1400” (1986).
Alternatively, perhaps the author of RPA could post which, of the
remaining five references not yet seen, support his assertion that the
wife of John Baynton was the daughter of Joan Arundel?
Louise
snip
Louise Staley
2006-06-11 02:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.
Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.
Post by John Higgins
This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.
Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In that
thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence which
proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a Batisford. When
time permits, I'll try to post it for you."

In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.

John Brandon
Post by John Higgins
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof."
I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.

It seems clear that this is a correction
Post by John Higgins
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two publications.
Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last updated 3
June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been removed.

In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line, as
presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation. However
there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship that can
cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof of the
crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands or fails.

Louise
John Higgins
2006-06-11 04:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I understand, and fully support, your effort to conclusively demonstrate the
inadequacy of DR's references to support this particular assertion, and more
broadly (and more importantly) the lack of scholarship that this indicates.
And this is certainly not the only instance of this problem, as readers of
this group know very well.

Although I applaud the effort (and others of a similar nature), I wonder if
it will have any impact on future works by the author. I've said before
that his works do have some value (IF they are used with care and thoroughly
verified before being cited), but his credibility has been greatly damaged
by the false aura of "scholarship" that is being increasingly challenged and
by his refusal to accept and admit that mistakes CAN be made. It's too
bad....a more "collegial" response would contribute greatly to the
usefulness of this group.

Perhaps the best we can do is to keep highlighting the issues, so that at
least some readers of RPA and MCA are aware of them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louise Staley" <***@bigpond.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported
Post by Louise Staley
Post by John Higgins
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of Abel Lunt"
says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana filia Willi Ichingham,
mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second wife Katherine Payne, this
pedigree (such as it is) clearly provides no support for the RPA/MCA
assertion that Joan Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel.
Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.
Post by John Higgins
This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are many
postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.
Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In that
thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence which
proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a Batisford. When
time permits, I'll try to post it for you."
In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.
John Brandon
Post by John Higgins
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of this year
that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel ancestry of the
Bayntuns is incapable of proof."
I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.
It seems clear that this is a correction
Post by John Higgins
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and never
delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two
publications.
Post by Louise Staley
Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last updated 3
June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been removed.
In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line, as
presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation. However
there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship that can
cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof of the
crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands or fails.
Louise
Debruised Robertson
2006-06-11 12:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louise Staley
Post by John Higgins
The 1623 visitation of Wiltshire referenced by "The Ancestry of
Abel Lunt" says that the [only] wife of John Baynton was "Jana
filia Willi Ichingham, mil.". Aside from missing Baynton's second
wife Katherine Payne, this pedigree (such as it is) clearly
provides no support for the RPA/MCA assertion that Joan Echingham's
mother was Joan Arundel.
Agreed, see my previous post on this issue today.
Post by John Higgins
This of course is hardly a new issue in this news group - there are
many postings in the archives which cast doubt on this point.
Absolutely, I note Tony Ingham has posted on this as have you in
September 2005 under the thread _BAYNTON Plantagenet Ancestry?_. In
that thread Richardson wrote "By the way, I believe there is evidence
which proves that Joan and Elizabeth Echingham's mother was a
Batisford. When time permits, I'll try to post it for you."
In actual fact, the _primary_ evidence demonstrates Joan and Elizabeth
Echingham's mother was Joan Arundel and Richardson has never posted
evidence to the contrary, despite being asked to do so.
John Brandon
Post by John Higgins
nicely summarized the situation when he said back in January of
this year that "we've mostly established that the Echingham/Arundel
ancestry of the Bayntuns is incapable of proof."
I would argue there is a major difference between a line being
"incapable of proof" i.e. an absence of evidence, and a line proved to
fail, i.e. evidence proving another thing. In this case we certainly
have the absence of evidence that Joan Arundel was the mother of the
wife of John Baynton, however we have more than that, we have primary
evidence that Joan Arundel did have a daughter named Joan (and another
named Elizabeth) and Joan married John Rykhill of Eslington, son of Sir
William Rykhill, Justice of the Common Pleas.
It seems clear that this is a correction
Post by John Higgins
to RPA and MCA which belongs on the author's long-promised (and
never delivered) website of corrections and additions to these two
publications.
Yes, that would be a good start. I seem to remember it was promised to
be delivered by October 2005 yet I see from just visiting
http://www.royalancestry.net/index.html that the site was last
updated 3 June 2006 and any reference to a corrections page has been
removed.
In this case it is not merely a correction, the entire Baynton line,
as presented in RPA fails at Baynton 12., the first generation.
However there is a broader point about a profound lack of scholarship
that can cite 26 references, with *NONE* yet found to provide proof
of the crucial relationship that determines whether the line stands
or fails.
Louise
What an extremely good post, so good that I wish I had been able to
write it myself.

What has to be remembered in all this is that it was my associate, Mr
Faris of honoured memory, who originally wrote this in the second
edition of the earlier series "Plantagenet Awfulness of the Seventeenth
Century". Now of course we have the New Plantagenet Awfulness without
Clause Four and thus appealing the more both to the masses and to the
chattering classes.

It was this associate who invented these sad practices and which,
knowing his condition and the esteem with which he was held, I did not
alter in the final edition of the earlier series. Said DF of treasured
memory indeed wrote that John Boynton was the son of Joan Echingham,
page 9, though for some inscrutable reasons he added in the curious
phrase "it is said" to this esteemed account.

So in his memory I maintained that item, though deleted the curious
phrase, in New Awfulness - though I've given away my last copy so
cannot check precisely what I did. By then, the late lamented Mr Faris
was alas no more so, while taking over the enterprise and renaming it, I
thought it necessary to keep this treasured item in memory of him. Of
course I knew all along that it was suspect and thought it would not
take long for you and your colleagues to spot this - the real surprise
is how long it has taken.

But also in his memory I have maintained the non-scholarly style of
referencing any old document that I can drag up that might or might not
refer to the chappies in question. This was DF's dying wish and added
as the 29th codicil (unpublished) to his will and communicated in a
plain sealed envelope to me by his executors. DF knew how much I had
been helped by him in the previous incarnation of this work. Of course
the codicil self-destructed ten minutes after opening so I cannot show
it to one and all. His words, as I remember them, were "these punters
are no-good genealogists, if they buy the book it is because they can't
find the information for themselves. So give them some references they
will work at, that way they may learn which are good and which bad and,
with luck, may even become Real Genealogists." Almost my own words, if
only I had been able to think of them first.

So there you have it, a master strategy to respect the memory of a life
that is alas no more and to develop the powers of all the punters who
purchase my lovely, lovely books. I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to express my true thoughts.

the very best,

dr

Awesome Castle
Imperial Precinct
Salt Lake City
W***@aol.com
2006-06-11 16:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In a message dated 6/11/2006 5:54:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@imperiousancestry.com writes:

But also in his memory I have maintained the non-scholarly style of
referencing any old document that I can drag up that might or might not
refer to the chappies in question. This was DF's dying wish and added
as the 29th codicil (unpublished) to his will and communicated in a
plain sealed envelope to me by his executors.


Yes all in good tongue-in-cheek fun. We know how *useful* these
unpublished, private, codicil's can be to those claiming priority in such matters.
Will
W***@aol.com
2006-06-13 01:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Louise, if you will write something, in the format of the other corrections
pages, I will post it to my page for corrections to PA

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/PAC/

Will Johnson
Louise Staley
2006-06-13 01:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Louise, if you will write something, in the format of the other corrections
pages, I will post it to my page for corrections to PA
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/PAC/
Will Johnson
Will, I would like to wait until I have seen all the references cited in
PA, then I will be happy to write something for your page.

Louise
W***@aol.com
2006-06-14 18:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't however yet see the necessity for making *this* William de Echyngham
the same as *that* William de Echyngham.

John Baynton, b abt 1407 per genealogics.org, if "Jana" Echyngham is a second
wife, could possibly be *of an age* with his purported father-in-law.

However the William de Echyngham "militis" which you all want to seem to
choose, is at least one if not two generations earlier than John Baynton.

I propose the possibility that there is another William de Echyngham, militis
or not. Merely dropping the militis, which is certainly the weakest point in
the visitations, should bring into view new avenues I'm sure.

Will Johnson
j***@btinternet.com
2018-10-29 10:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Just wondering why *NONE* is always written in block capitals... seems like you have an agenda, or are angry about this connection in some way?

My question is, if her mother wasn't Joan FitzAlan, who do you believe Joan de Echingham's (the clue's in the name) real parents were? And if so, do you have any proof at all?
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-29 11:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@btinternet.com
Just wondering why *NONE* is always written in block capitals... seems like you have an agenda, or are angry about this connection in some way?
My question is, if her mother wasn't Joan FitzAlan, who do you believe Joan de Echingham's (the clue's in the name) real parents were? And if so, do you have any proof at all?
Just a general reminder that when you respond to an e-mail that was sent 12 years ago, providing some context is very helpful.
--JC
Richard Smith
2018-11-06 14:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@btinternet.com
My question is, if her mother wasn't Joan FitzAlan, who do you believe Joan de Echingham's (the
clue's in the name) real parents were? And if so, do you have any proof at all?
I'm writing this reply from memory as the bulk of my research notes are
still in boxes from moving house. However this generation of the
Echyngham family is one I've researched in some detail, and fairly
recently, so I'm fairly confident I'm remembering correctly.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't worked out the context to the post,
it was apparently sent in reply to a post on 9 June 2006 by Louise
Staley which can be read here:

https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/lnUhUjav/rpa-correction-echingham-baynton-line-not-supported

Louise quotes "RPA" [Richardson's /Plantagenet Ancestry/] as saying that
Joan, wife of Sir John Baynton, was the daughter of Sir William
Echyngham by his wife Joan, the daughter of John, Baron Arundel. She
questions whether any of Richardson's sources support Joan Arundel being
the mother-in-law of John Baynton, and in the subsequent discussion none
of the Richardson's sources were found to support this statement.

You ask who else John Baynton's wife's parents might have been. I don't
know, as the evidence I've seen is insufficient to support a conclusion
in any direction. I've read the 2006 thread in some detail, and it
contains no material new information.

I'm only aware of one primary source which apparently identifies John
Baynton's wife being the daughter of Sir William Echyngham. That source
is apparently the Baynton pedgiree in the 1623 Visitations of Wiltshire,
which is quoted as saying John married "Jana filia Willi Ichingham mil."
The first problem is that this detail is not found in the published
version of the pedigree. I know that multiple divergent manuscript
copies exist of some visitations, and I also know that some of the
published visitations include "corrections" not found in the original.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that this is a genuine quote from
the stated visitation. Sir William Echyngham died more than two
centuries before the visitation, so this is not remotely a contemporary
record. No-one alive when the heralds compiled the pedigree would have
known Sir John Baynton or his wife, far less Sir William Echyngham.
I've not found this detail on earlier visitations, including the 1565
visitation. The only John Baynton in the 1565 pedigree does have a
wife named Jane, but she is made the daughter of Thomas Dygges, and
published accounts of the Baynton family plausibly suggest the 1565
pedigree is missing a generation. I tend to be sceptical of details
that are only given in much later visitations at the best of times, but
these other apparent errors make me even more sceptical.

There is contemporary evidence that Sir William Echyngham did have a
daughter named Joan who marred John (or conceivably William) Rykhill.
It's possible that John Rykhill died and Joan subsequently married John
Baynton, tough I never found a chronology that quite worked. (To be
fair, uncertainty over dates on the Baynton side was more the problem.)
To complicate matters further, Sir William Echyngham's father was also
called Sir William Echyngham, and he too had a daughter called Joan, and
I've seen posts here in the past that conflate the aunt and niece.

Again, for the sake argument, let's suppose John Baynton's wife was the
daughter of (the younger) Sir William Echyngham. We still don't know
who the mother was as most researchers accept that Sir William Echyngham
married at least twice: first to Alice Battisford, and then to Joan
Arundel. Nigel Saul's book on the Sussex gentry (currently in storage
so I can't find the reference) has him marrying another Joan after Joan
Arundel, though I'm doubtful about that. There's heraldic evidence that
someone around this time in the main Echyngham line of descent married a
woman from the Shoyswell family. There are about as many opinions on
which Echyngham man that was as there are researchers who've considered
the question, but I don't think we can eliminate the possibility that it
was Sir William. The point here is that we cannot assume that any
legitimate child of Sir William was necessarily by Joan Arundel.

In the particular case of John Baynton's wife, if we suppose she is was
the widow John Rykhill then chronologically it makes more sense for her
to be the daughter of Alice Battisford. I don't think we know when
Alice died, but we do know that Joan Arundel's first husband did not die
until 1395, so her marriage to Sir William Echyngham was after that.
Finally, I'm pretty sure there was evidence that Joan Rykill had
inherited (jointly with her sister Elizabeth) an interest in some
Batisford property. It's certainly not clear cut, but it seemed to me
more likely than not that Joan Rykhill was the daughter of Alice
Batisford rather than of Joan Arundel.

An no, the clue is not in the name. Joan was amongst the most common
women's names in England at this time. Lots of people had daughters
called Joan without the mother being named Joan too. If the name were
very rare it would be a useful clue, but that is not the case here.

So far as I can see, Louise Staley's original post is correct. The link
from the Baynton family back to the prestigious Arundel line is
unsupported. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you to provide
evidence for this.

Richard
wjhonson
2018-11-07 17:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
*Since* John Rykhill died almost *FORTY* years before Joan I think it's almost a certainty that she married someone else in that time period.
Richard Smith
2018-11-07 23:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
*Since* John Rykhill died almost *FORTY* years before Joan I think it's almost a certainty that she
married someone else in that time period.
But that's a circular argument, isn't it? We only know John Rykhill's
widow lived until c1473 if we've already accepted she subsequently
married John Baynton, so we can't use it as evidence that she must have
married a second time. Or looking at it the other way, if I don't
believe John Rykhill's widow married John Baynton, there's no reason
attach any relevance to the date of John Baynton's widow's death when
trying to work out what became of John Rykhill's widow.

Or are you aware of another piece of evidence that John Rykhill's widow
lived until c1473 which doesn't require on a convoluted chain of
reasoning dependent on the quote allegedly found in the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire? If you are, that could be an important breakthrough.

Richard
Joe
2018-11-08 16:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Joan Echingham (m. John Rykhill) and her sister Elizabeth Echingham (m. Sir Thomas Hoo, & Sir Thomas Lewknor) were the daughters of William Echyngham by his first wife Alice Batisford.

William Echyngham could have had a daughter Joan by his 2nd wife Joan Arundel who m. John Baynton as stated in the Visitations. You have to postulate that he named two daughters Joan - not an impossibility and there are examples within the recent generations of this family (IIRC).
Post by Richard Smith
Post by wjhonson
*Since* John Rykhill died almost *FORTY* years before Joan I think it's almost a certainty that she
married someone else in that time period.
But that's a circular argument, isn't it? We only know John Rykhill's
widow lived until c1473 if we've already accepted she subsequently
married John Baynton, so we can't use it as evidence that she must have
married a second time. Or looking at it the other way, if I don't
believe John Rykhill's widow married John Baynton, there's no reason
attach any relevance to the date of John Baynton's widow's death when
trying to work out what became of John Rykhill's widow.
Or are you aware of another piece of evidence that John Rykhill's widow
lived until c1473 which doesn't require on a convoluted chain of
reasoning dependent on the quote allegedly found in the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire? If you are, that could be an important breakthrough.
Richard
Richard Smith
2018-11-08 23:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Joan Echingham (m. John Rykhill) and her sister Elizabeth Echingham (m. Sir Thomas Hoo, & Sir Thomas
Lewknor) were the daughters of William Echyngham by his first wife Alice Batisford.
I'm inclined to agree, but we need to be aware that there is evidence
against this too. John Rykhill's response to an inquisition ad quod
damnum regarding the town walls at Winchelsea includes:

"John Rykhill, as in his right of Joan his wife, and Elizabeth her
sister, daughters of William lord of Echyngham, knight, and of Joan his
wife, have 36 3/8 yards in 2 tofts lying together in the same quarter
which descended to them by hereditary right on the death of Joan their
mother and are held of the king in chief by fee-farm of 8 ¾ d being
worth 11 ¼ d yearly to John (as in right of Joan his wife) and Elizabeth."

I've not read this. The above is a quote from Charlotte Smith on this
group in 2006. She cited RYE 146/2 in the East Sussex Record Office (in
Brighton), saying "Inquisition no 503 begins on page 278, John Rykhill's
item is on page 280". Charlotte Smith did a lot of work on this family
but seems no longer to be contactable using her old email address.

http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_RYE_24_146_2

Has anyone here seen the original and verified that it does really say
Joan and Elizabeth were the children of William and Joan, as per the
quote above?

As I recall, that is the only piece of evidence suggesting Joan and
Elizabeth were children of Joan Arundel rather than Alice Batisford, and
it is a Tudor copy of the original, so perhaps a mistake was made in
copying it. But if so, it seems a bit of a coincidence that in
miscopying it, the clerk managed to insert the name of William's other
wife when he could have ended up with any name.
Post by Joe
William Echyngham could have had a daughter Joan by his 2nd wife Joan
Arundel who m. John Baynton as stated in the Visitations. You have
to postulate that he named two daughters Joan - not an impossibility
and there are examples within the recent generations of this family
(IIRC).
I agree, it is possible that William had two daughters named Joan, one
by Alice Batisford and one by Joan Arundel, but it's pretty unusual to
find two surviving children with the same name. At the moment, it seems
more probable that the 1623 visitation is wrong. That's the only
evidence that John Baynton's wife Joan was an Echyngham.

Richard
Joe
2018-11-10 18:55:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Joe
Joan Echingham (m. John Rykhill) and her sister Elizabeth Echingham (m. Sir Thomas Hoo, & Sir Thomas
Lewknor) were the daughters of William Echyngham by his first wife Alice Batisford.
I'm inclined to agree, but we need to be aware that there is evidence
against this too. John Rykhill's response to an inquisition ad quod
"John Rykhill, as in his right of Joan his wife, and Elizabeth her
sister, daughters of William lord of Echyngham, knight, and of Joan his
wife, have 36 3/8 yards in 2 tofts lying together in the same quarter
which descended to them by hereditary right on the death of Joan their
mother and are held of the king in chief by fee-farm of 8 ¾ d being
worth 11 ¼ d yearly to John (as in right of Joan his wife) and Elizabeth."
I've not read this. The above is a quote from Charlotte Smith on this
group in 2006. She cited RYE 146/2 in the East Sussex Record Office (in
Brighton), saying "Inquisition no 503 begins on page 278, John Rykhill's
item is on page 280". Charlotte Smith did a lot of work on this family
but seems no longer to be contactable using her old email address.
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_RYE_24_146_2
Has anyone here seen the original and verified that it does really say
Joan and Elizabeth were the children of William and Joan, as per the
quote above?
As I recall, that is the only piece of evidence suggesting Joan and
Elizabeth were children of Joan Arundel rather than Alice Batisford, and
it is a Tudor copy of the original, so perhaps a mistake was made in
copying it. But if so, it seems a bit of a coincidence that in
miscopying it, the clerk managed to insert the name of William's other
wife when he could have ended up with any name.
The record was not a response from John Rykhill, that mis-characterizes it as something John Rykhill directly attested to.

It comes from a Commission of Inquiry found in the Cal. of
Inquisitions Misc. The people of Winchelsea, co. Sussex wished to
build a new wall around their town with the king’s help. Winchelsea
had shrunk in size compared to the past and to rebuild the wall at its
former location was burdensome both in terms of labor and cost.
However, the path of the new wall would pass through many properties
decreasing their value, and importantly (to the king) decrease the
amount of rent the townsmen could pay (since most of the property was
held in fee-farm of the king). The commission was established to
determine how land owners would be damaged by the new wall, how the
king would be damaged and to what degree. The two commissioners went
foot by foot around the proposed path of the wall and gave their
opinion as to how the value of the property would change.

The important aspect of this was it was not IPM, the commissioners
were not charged with accurately determining land ownership and
certainly not hereditary right, and there would have been no witnesses
called or charters presented to prove who owned each foot of land.
Joan Rykhill and her sister Elizabeth were just two of dozens of
people mentioned as affected by the new wall and were in no way the
focus of the Commission of Inquiry.

So despite the fact that the record directly calls Joan Rykhill and
her sister Elizabeth daughters of Joan, it is not improbable that they
got this wrong. They assumed the daughters of William Echyngham were also the daughters of his current wife. It is clear from many other records they were the daughters of Alice Batisford, and by dates could not possibly the daughters of Joan Arundel.
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Joe
William Echyngham could have had a daughter Joan by his 2nd wife Joan
Arundel who m. John Baynton as stated in the Visitations. You have
to postulate that he named two daughters Joan - not an impossibility
and there are examples within the recent generations of this family
(IIRC).
I agree, it is possible that William had two daughters named Joan, one
by Alice Batisford and one by Joan Arundel, but it's pretty unusual to
find two surviving children with the same name. At the moment, it seems
more probable that the 1623 visitation is wrong. That's the only
evidence that John Baynton's wife Joan was an Echyngham.
I would agree that it is unusual but also not so rare in this time period as to preclude the possibility.

This is what I wrote in the past about the evidence that John Baynton's wife was an Echyngham:

1. To say that there is no evidence is not correct – it is just not satisfying as it depends on piecing together Visitation records. Visitation of Wilts: John Baynton m. Joan the daughter of William Echingham. The 1623 Visitation as printed is certainly flawed in other generations, though apparently (according to Walter Goodwin Davis) the match to “Joan Echingham daughter of Sir William Echingham of Echingham, co. Sussex” is repeated in the “the great Baynton pedigree” and includes it his Ancestry of Abel Lunt while the other errors are not. Visitation of Sussex: Sir William Echingham, of Echingham co. Sussex Lord of the manor of Echingham married Joane d. of John FitzAllen Lord Matravers So following the logic, if John Baynton married Joan a daughter of William Echingham, and William Echingham was married to Joan de Arundel, then John’s wife Joan was most likely a daughter of Joan de Arundel.
Yes, I realize the fallibility of Visitation records, but that doesn’t mean there is no basis for the match. Yes, I realize that there could have been a different William Echingham but I can find no other candidates. Yes, for John Baynton to have married a daughter of William Echingham you would have to assume he had two daughters named Joan, 1 by each wife.

2. I think it is clear that the Commission of Inquiry record is in error and so can no longer be used as proof that John Baynton could not have married Joan Echingham. Though you would have to assume that William Echingham had a daughter Joan (m. to John Rykill) by his first wife Alice Batisford, and a second daughter Joan (m. to John Baynton) by his second wife Joan Arundel. A not uncommon occurrence in this time period (an example just looking at this family, Joan Arundel’s grandfather John Maltravers had 2 sons both named John). If anything this record may help by proving that the wife of John Baynton could not be a daughter by William Echingham’s first marriage.

3. The statement found in past threads that the Bayntons had no connection to Sussex is not correct. In fact, the connection provides a very interesting link to the Arundels. The Baynton’s held the manor of Apsley, co. Sussex. It anciently belonged to the family Le Tabler and was brought to the Bayntons on the marriage of Margaret Grymstede to Thomas Baynton a century before. This manor was also known in various records as Tablershall and Benton’s Manor. Interestingly, in 1419 Nicholas Baynton (John’s father) granted his manor of `Tabelereshalle' in Shipley, co. Sussex to John Arundell, Lord Arundel and Mautravers, John Burgh, esquire, William Ryman and Philip Marchall who were still seised of the manor at the time of Nicholas Baynton’s IPM on 29 May 1422. This was apparently to put the estate in trust as it is later held by John Baynton and Joan his wife. I found this example of John Arundel, Lord Arundel and Mautravers acting as a trustee of Nicholas Baynton to be quite unexpected and I think gives some credence to the possibility that John Baynton could have married a daughter of Joan Arundel. I would hypothesize that this transfer of 'Tabelereshalle' manor to Lord Arundel in trust and then back to John Baynton and his wife Joan (Arundel) could have been part of a marriage agreement.

There is a second interesting family connection not previously mentioned. The mother of Nicholas’ Baynton’s wife was Willelma de la Mare; Willelma’s brother was Peter de la Mare who married Matilda Maltravers (so a cousin of John Arundel, Lord Maltravers). This is just to show the Baynton's probably knew and ran in the same circles as the Maltravers and the Arundels.

Joe
Richard Smith
2018-11-11 00:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Joe
Joan Echingham (m. John Rykhill) and her sister Elizabeth Echingham (m. Sir Thomas Hoo, & Sir Thomas
Lewknor) were the daughters of William Echyngham by his first wife Alice Batisford.
I'm inclined to agree, but we need to be aware that there is evidence
against this too. John Rykhill's response to an inquisition ad quod
"John Rykhill, as in his right of Joan his wife, and Elizabeth her
sister, daughters of William lord of Echyngham, knight, and of Joan his
wife, have 36 3/8 yards in 2 tofts lying together in the same quarter
which descended to them by hereditary right on the death of Joan their
mother and are held of the king in chief by fee-farm of 8 ¾ d being
worth 11 ¼ d yearly to John (as in right of Joan his wife) and Elizabeth."
[...]
The record was not a response from John Rykhill, that mis-characterizes > it as something John Rykhill directly attested to.
It comes from a Commission of Inquiry found in the Cal. of
Inquisitions Misc.
Thanks. From Charlotte Smith's posts 12 years ago, I thought the only
version surviving was the Tudor copy in the Brighton archives. The
refer listed as Cal. Inq. Misc., VII, 503, which can be found here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000095331678;view=1up;seq=290

The reference paragraph in question is at the foot of page 280.

I'm quite sure that John Rykhill knew the name of his mother-in-law, but
if an inquisition ad quod damnun wasn't like an inquisition post mortem,
and didn't have witnesses called before a jury, we don't know where this
information came from, so it's details are a little more suspect.
So despite the fact that the record directly calls Joan Rykhill and
her sister Elizabeth daughters of Joan, it is not improbable that they
got this wrong. They assumed the daughters of William Echyngham were
also the daughters of his current wife. It is clear from many other
records they were the daughters of Alice Batisford, and by dates could > not possibly the daughters of Joan Arundel.
As I recall, the chronology rules out Elizabeth being the daughter of
Joan, but it is a little less clear cut for Joan.
1. To say that there is no evidence is not correct – it is just not
satisfying as it depends on piecing together Visitation records.
Visitation of Wilts: John Baynton m. Joan the daughter of William Echingham.
But does it really say this in the 1623 Visitation of Wiltshire? I came
to the conclusion it probably didn't, and it was most likely an early
19th century pedigree compiled by Rev Thomas Leman of Bath, citing
unspecified early deeds for those generations, that got included
included in Thomas Phillipps' 1828 edition of the Visitation of
Wiltshire, and has subsequently been reproduced as part of the
visitation. I'm pretty certain it's not in Harl. MS. 1165 which is a
copy of the 1623 Visitation of Wiltshire written in the hand of Henry
St. George, the Richmond Herald, and Sampson Lennard, the Bluemantle
Pursuivant, the two heralds who actually conducted the visitation on
behalf of the dying William Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms. Of course,
it's possible Harl. MS. 1165 was an abridged version of visitation, but
I've not seen evidence of that.
The 1623 Visitation as printed is certainly flawed in other generations,
though apparently (according to Walter Goodwin Davis) the match to > “Joan Echingham daughter of Sir William Echingham of Echingham,
co. Sussex” is repeated in the “the great Baynton pedigree” and includes
it his Ancestry of Abel Lunt while the other errors are not. Visitation
of Sussex: Sir William Echingham, of Echingham co. Sussex Lord of the
manor of Echingham married Joane d. of John FitzAllen Lord Matravers
Have you ever managed to locate this "great pedigree"? Davis says of
it: "Sampson Lennard, Bluemantle (1616-1633), of the College of Arms
drew up a great pedigree of the Bayntons of Wiltshire, including many
maternal descents, much of the earlier portions being demonstratively
false." [/Ancestry of Abel Lunt/, p 201]. That description doesn't
fill me with confidence. Assuming it post-dates the 1623 visitation,
Lennard will obviously have had access to it, and will almost certainly
have access to the 1565 Visitation of Wiltshire. But (as published) the
1565 Visitation omits Sir John, jumping straight from Sir Nicholas to
Sir Robert, who in practice were almost certainly grandfather and
grandson, with Sir John being the intermediate generation. I can
believe Lennard had access to further sources to allow him to correct
the 1563 Visitation. But what actually did he say?

Leman's pedigree (as published in Phillipps' 1828 edition of the 1623
Visitation of Wiltshire) gets these generations demonstrably wrong by
adding two generations called John, the first marrying Jane, daughter of
Sir Richard Dudley, and the second marrying Jane [sic], daughter of Sir
William Echyngham. Given that Nicholas's son John (and therefore the
first if there were two generations called John) was born in about 1407,
and Robert was born in about 1439, we simply can't accommodate an extra
generation. I can believe Leman may have had access to Lennard's "great
pedigree". Did Leman copy the two Johns from the "great pedigree"?
2. I think it is clear that the Commission of Inquiry record is in error
and so can no longer be used as proof that John Baynton could not have
married Joan Echingham.
Sorry, I'm not following that. Even if you do believe the inquisition
ad quod damnum on the Winchelsea town walls to be entirely accurate (and
I agree with you it very likely isn't), does this preclude John Baynton
from marrying a Joan Echyngham? First, you do get full siblings with
the same name, even though it's less common than with half siblings, and
four children during the short period of William and Joan's marriage is
just about possible. Alternatively, John Baynton's wife could be a
child of William Echyngham's first marriage, in which case it's likely
John Baynton wasn't her first husband, though that's a distinct
likelihood even if John Baynton's mother-in-law was Joan Arundel.

I should also note I'm not yet absolutely satisfied that it's not
possible that Joan married John Rykhill and then John Baynton. I'm
hoping Will Johnson might answer my question about the whereabouts of
Joan Rykhill's will when he has a moment.

(I am to an extent playing Devil's advocate here. I don't think it's
proved either way, but my feeling is that John Baynton's wife was
probably not an Echyngham.)
3. The statement found in past threads that the Bayntons had no
connection to Sussex is not correct. In fact, the connection provides
a very interesting link to the Arundels. The Baynton’s held the manor
of Apsley, co. Sussex. It anciently belonged to the family Le Tabler
and was brought to the Bayntons on the marriage of Margaret Grymstede
to Thomas Baynton a century before. This manor was also known in
various records as Tablershall and Benton’s Manor. Interestingly, in
1419 Nicholas Baynton (John’s father) granted his manor of
`Tabelereshalle' in Shipley, co. Sussex to John Arundell, Lord Arundel
and Mautravers, John Burgh, esquire, William Ryman and Philip Marchall
who were still seised of the manor at the time of Nicholas Baynton’s
IPM on 29 May 1422. This was apparently to put the estate in trust
as it is later held by John Baynton and Joan his wife.
Yes, it seems a fairly standard cestui que trust for the use of a family
member, who is not identified in the IPM. I'd noticed this in
Nchiolas's IPM before, and I'd wondered whether it had somehow been
interpreted as representing a family connection. The John, Lord Arundel
mentioned is the nephew of Joan Arundel (the second wife of William
Echyngham), who became the 13th or 6th Earl of Arundel in 1415.

Out of interest, what's the source for John and Joan later holding it?
He didn't hold it at the time of his death according to his entry in the
old series CIPM (IV, 331).
I found this example of John Arundel, Lord Arundel and Mautravers > acting as a trustee of Nicholas Baynton to be quite unexpected and
I think gives some credence to the possibility that John Baynton
could have married a daughter of Joan Arundel. I would hypothesize
that this transfer of 'Tabelereshalle' manor to Lord Arundel in trust
and then back to John Baynton and his wife Joan (Arundel) could have
been part of a marriage agreement.
(I think you mean "John (Echyngham)", not "Joan (Arundel)".)

Nicholas's IPM tells us that the trust was created in 1419, at which
point John Baynton would have been about 12 (or possibly 14), and if his
bride-to-be was the daughter of William Echyngham she would have been at
least 15. Those are plausible ages for a marriage contract.

You're presumably using the fact that John Arundel would have been a
first cousin of Joan Echyngham as circumstantial evidence that John
Baynton's wife Joan was an Echyngham? I agree that trusts in these
circumstances would often include a member of the bride-to-be's family,
but I would have though it more to have been a closer male relative, for
example her brother Thomas Echyngham, who was certainly still alive.

The problem with this as evidence is that trusts of this sort were set
in up all sorts of situations, and even if it was for a marriage,
there's no guarantee the trustees included a member of the bride-to-be's
family. Or maybe one of the other trustees is related to the
bride-to-be, and John Arundel has been listed first on the grounds that
he was an earl. The trustees commonly included unrelated young men one
rung higher on the social ladder, and the Arundels must have been
trustees of many cestui que trusts for a knightly families holding land
in Sussex.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this, just that I don't think this
trust is sufficient evidence to corroborate the inadequate evidence
provided by the Leman pedigree. But possibly a better understand of
Lennard's "great pedigree" might help.
There is a second interesting family connection not previously mentioned.
The mother of Nicholas’ Baynton’s wife was Willelma de la Mare;
Willelma’s brother was Peter de la Mare who married Matilda Maltravers
(so a cousin of John Arundel, Lord Maltravers).
A fairly distant cousin. I think Matilda Maltravers was a second cousin
of the Joan Arundel who married William Echyngham, and a second cousin
once removed of John Arundel, Lord Arundel and Maltravers and later 13th
or 6th Earl of Arundel. Perhaps close enough to indicate a social
connection, but probably not close enough to gain influence by virtue of
the relationship.
This is just to show the Baynton's probably knew and ran in the same
circles as the Maltravers and the Arundels.
Oh, I'm certain that's true. The Bayntons were one of the leading
families in Wiltshire, and of a similar status to the Echynghams in
Sussex. By the 15th century, the main Maltravers line had died out and
the cadet branches (such as the one Matilda was from) perhaps had a
similar status too. The Arundels were definitely a step higher on the
social ladder, but Joan Arundel was a daughter of a younger son of the
10th or 3rd Earl of Arundel, and at the time of her marriage to Sir
William Echyngham the earldom was forfeit and her uncle, the 11th or 4th
Earl, had just been executed. It's not particularly surprising someone
in that position married into one of the local knightly families, and
(if the unsourced comment in Wikipedia is to be believed) her father was
born in Etchingham, the seat of the Echyngham family. For the
Echynghams, this would have been a good marriage, but not an exceptional
one. I've not spent as much time with the Baynton family, but I
wouldn't be surprised to discover similar marriages in that family. So
I've absolutely no problem believing a marriage between the Bayntons and
Echynghams was socially quite feasible. My doubt is whether it actually
did happen.

By the way, I'm finding this thread very helpful, so thank you to all
who are participating in it.

Richard
Joe
2018-11-11 13:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
But does it really say this in the 1623 Visitation of Wiltshire? I came
to the conclusion it probably didn't,
I agree that the statement found in the Visitations of Wiltshire likely was not in the original, actual Visitation but was added to the printed version. Just about all of the printed versions of the Visitations are actually a mix of the original Visitation and pedigrees added later by heralds and antiquarians; I believe this is the primary source of many of the errors found in the Visitations. In fact, its my opinion that the printed Wiltshire version is perhaps the worst with regard to the sheer number of errors.
Post by Richard Smith
Have you ever managed to locate this "great pedigree"?
No, I have never tracked down or seen the Great Baynton Pedigree, I have no idea exactly what it is, nor do I know how accurate it may be. It may be the source for the addition to the pedigree in the Visitation of Wiltshire. I was just pointing out that Walter Goodwin Davis was citing a second source.
Post by Richard Smith
Sorry, I'm not following that.
That’s because it was a copy-paste response to something from more than a decade ago. The Commission of Inquiry record was being called an IPM and was accepted as absolute proof that the wife of John Rykhill was a daughter of Joan Arundel. The argument went, there is no way that a daughter of Joan Arundel could have married 1st John Rykhill and 2nd John Baynton, therefore the wife of John Baynton could not be the daughter of Joan Arundel. However, if the Commission of Inquiry record is simply wrong and the wife of John Rykhill was a daughter of Alice Batisford, then there is no problem with John Baynton’s wife being a daughter of Joan Arundel.
Post by Richard Smith
Out of interest, what's the source for John and Joan later holding it?
He didn't hold it at the time of his death according to his entry in the
old series CIPM (IV, 331).
I don’t recall exactly, but it is not something I had any doubt about. The VCH entry on Apsley discusses the Baynton’s association with the manor through the 1480s https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/sussex/vol6/pt2/pp112-117
Post by Richard Smith
I've absolutely no problem believing a marriage between the Bayntons and
Echynghams was socially quite feasible. My doubt is whether it actually
did happen.
All those threads from 2004-2006 came down to 3 basic arguments as to why Joan Baynton was not the daughter of William Echyngham by Joan Arundel:

1. There was no evidence to support the claim found in AR7, PA, MCS and other secondary sources. All 17 references given in Richardson’s PA were examined and no supporting evidence was found.

2. The Commission of Inquiry record was interpreted as - if Joan Arundel had a daughter Joan married to John Rykhill, that Joan (the daughter) could not have also married John Baynton.

3. The Baynton’s of Wiltshire had no known connection to Sussex, and it is very unlikely that John Baynton would marry a daughter of William Echingham and Joan de Arundel from Sussex.

Point 1 is wrong. The only evidence we have (Visitations and the Great Baynton Pedigree) says she was. I agree this is not completely satisfactory. The Visitations of Wiltshire are known to be flawed with easily demonstrable errors within the Baynton pedigree itself. We don’t know what the Great Baynton Pedigree is and may be the same ultimate source as the Visitation record. We actually don’t have anything against the identification other than a lack of supporting evidence.

Point 2 is wrong. The Commission of Inquiry record was misrepresented as an IPM and misinterpreted. Joan Rykhill was a daughter of Alice Batisford, therefore there is no problem with Joan Baynton being a daughter of Joan Arundel as stated in the Visitations.

Point 3 is wrong. The Bayntons had a very direct connection to Sussex, and in fact this connection directly tied them to the Arundels.

I am not saying that I accept the identification of Joan Baynton as the daughter of William Echyngham and Joan Arundel as something proven. If you wish to doubt the Visitation record as something which is potentially flawed and lacking supporting evidence, that is fine and I even agree. But I will say the arguments against the identification were also flawed and completely failed to disprove what the Visitation record states.
Post by Richard Smith
By the way, I'm finding this thread very helpful, so thank you to all
who are participating in it.
Richard
It was a fun discussion then and now.
Joe

wjhonson
2018-11-08 19:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by wjhonson
*Since* John Rykhill died almost *FORTY* years before Joan I think it's almost a certainty that she
married someone else in that time period.
But that's a circular argument, isn't it? We only know John Rykhill's
widow lived until c1473 if we've already accepted she subsequently
married John Baynton, so we can't use it as evidence that she must have
married a second time. Or looking at it the other way, if I don't
believe John Rykhill's widow married John Baynton, there's no reason
attach any relevance to the date of John Baynton's widow's death when
trying to work out what became of John Rykhill's widow.
Or are you aware of another piece of evidence that John Rykhill's widow
lived until c1473 which doesn't require on a convoluted chain of
reasoning dependent on the quote allegedly found in the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire? If you are, that could be an important breakthrough.
Richard
I'm not sure what you mean here Richard by 1473.

Joan, the widow, left a will dated 6 Aug 1453
Richard Smith
2018-11-08 20:24:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by Richard Smith
Post by wjhonson
*Since* John Rykhill died almost *FORTY* years before Joan I think it's almost a certainty that she
married someone else in that time period.
But that's a circular argument, isn't it? We only know John Rykhill's
widow lived until c1473 if we've already accepted she subsequently
married John Baynton, so we can't use it as evidence that she must have
married a second time. Or looking at it the other way, if I don't
believe John Rykhill's widow married John Baynton, there's no reason
attach any relevance to the date of John Baynton's widow's death when
trying to work out what became of John Rykhill's widow.
Or are you aware of another piece of evidence that John Rykhill's widow
lived until c1473 which doesn't require on a convoluted chain of
reasoning dependent on the quote allegedly found in the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire? If you are, that could be an important breakthrough.
Richard
I'm not sure what you mean here Richard by 1473.
Sorry. I probably shouldn't have tried to comment without access to all
my research notes. I thought that John Baynton's widow died in 1473.
While that's true, looking in Richardson's /Royal Ancestry/ [I.272] I
see that this was his second wife, Katherine Payne, and not Joan.
Apologies for the confusion.
Post by wjhonson
Joan, the widow, left a will dated 6 Aug 1453
I'm pretty certain that's new to me. Where was it proved, please? I
can't immediately find it in the PCC.

Richard
Loading...