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