Possible non-existant daughters in a Magna Carta line

Question

Will others please give a sanity check? This profile has sisters named Beatrice and Eleanor, and he also has daughters with the same names. When trying to work out what happened to the latter 2 girls, I noticed that the 2 daughters might come from a record which is about the sisters. Looking at sources:

• Richardson, who we are citing, is apparently just following a rather odd and unsourced remark from Complete Peerage? (Being volume 2 of the 2nd edition it is not one of the better volumes.) 
• CP says, on his son's entry "b. apparently after 4 Oct. 1304, when his sisters Alienor and Beatrice were living". And so it implies these two names appear in a document of that date. 
• This must refer to the same document we are citing in the research notes, which however DOES already refer to a son named John, making the remark of CP hard to follow. Our extract does not mention the two girls.
• Another extract can be found here: https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofsom36some/page/36/mode/2up and it makes it clear that they are mentioned in that document, but as SISTERS of the John who was an adult in 1304.

Comments

Trying to work out what the original reasoning was, perhaps they were assuming the son John mentioned in that document died young, and that there was a second one? I can't see why that needs to be assumed though. The charter clearly wasn't only about dead people.

---

To save others searching for it, the Complete Peerage page which suggests Alienor and Beatrice were sisters of the son of John de Beauchamp-61 is in the revised edition, Vol. II, St Catherine Press, 1912, p. 49, viewable here on Internet Archive. And Andrew is right in saying that it looks pretty clear that this suggestion is based on a misreading of the 1304 record referred to in the research notes on John de Bauchamp-61's profile.

---

Sorry, yes, did not want to make the post too long. (The links are on the profiles of John and his father, also John.) Challenge for us: Neither Richardson nor Complete Peerage really explain their sources for this information.

Answer 1

The link Andrew has given in the final bullet of his question is to an 1890 article in the Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society. That article goes on to say that, at the time of his death, John de Beauchamp-61 (the John Andrew gave a link to in his question) had one surviving son at his death in 10 Edward III, and refers to one daughter, the Joan who married John de Cobham: John Batten, "The Barony of Beauchamp of Somerset", p. 40, Internet Archive, in Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Vol.XXXVI, 1890.

That does not of course rule out the possibility of other daughters who died in his lifetime.

Comments

One of my aims here is to look for lines that don't get mentioned in such documents, so that is how I spotted the potential problem. It would be great if the 2 daughters exist but it seems they derive from a misunderstanding in vol. 2 of CP, which Richardson has taken over.

---

Yes, you may well be right, and I was not questioning that. It is good to have the question asked.

---

Just for completeness the document is discussed by Batten a few pages earlier, not on page 40

Answer 2

The Proc SANHS article points to the full text of the original in Collinson's History of Somerset, volume 3, page 316, taken from the Bishop's register.

The foundation was by John de Bellocampo with consent of his mother Cecily, for 5 priests to pray for the souls of "domini Johannis de Bellocampo patris sui, Roberti de Bellocampo fratris sui, ... dictae Ceciiiae de Bellocampo, dictique domini Johannis, et dominae Johannae consortis suae, liberorumq; suorum Alienorae et Beatricis sororum ejus": that is his father John, his brother Robert, the said Cecily, the said John, his wife Joan and children, his sisters Eleanor and Beatrice. 

On the next page there is a specification of money for distribution of bread to the poor for their souls, "viz. pro Johanne patre, Cecilia matre, & Johanne filio 20s. pro rata portione: & pro Roberto fratre, & Johanna uxore dicti domini Johannis dimidium marcae pro portione aequali": that is John the father, Cecily the mother, John the son, Robert the brother, and Joan wife of the said John.

The reference to 'John the son' I would take as referring to the founder himself in distinction from his father, rather than the son of the founder. The entry in the Regesta, from the Papal register, has therefore either misinterpreted this or was looking at a slightly different version.

The son John was therefore probably not born by 4 October 1304, or he would have been mentioned explicitly rather than under the catchall of 'and children'.

I agree with your assessment that the daughters are a phantom. CP ought to say "b. apparently after 4 Oct. 1304, when his father's sisters Alienor and Beatrice were living".

Comments

That looks like a great answer Andrew. So this effects the son's profile too.

---

The extract from the Regesta cited in the Research Notes is actually misdated.  It refers back to the document of 4 Oct 1304 but  the Regesta document itself appears to be dated 1 Aug 1309, by which time John 'the son' would probably have been born.

I don't know where the incorrect information in the CP would have come from?  There is no mention in the 1st edition, vol 1, p. 275 but perhaps there was research in between the two editions that identified a mistake? Finding what happened to Eleanor and Beatrice, whether they married and had children may give a final answer about which generation they belong to?

---

Hi John, so far I found no primary evidence for the existence of these daughters. For the sisters we have information already.

The question of whether any source exists is also partly triggered by the exact date CP gives, which seems to identify the source CP is using and that seems in turn to show a mistake. This seems to have been added in the second edition.

Concerning the regesta document wouldn't it be understood as a recitation of a 1304 document? Is it a different document to the one Batten cites? See pp 34-35 of Batten. Perhaps we need to tweak our wording about that.

---

This also affects the daughter Joan, and the first son William, as it appears that John and Joan Beauchamp had no children, living or dead, at this point.

---

Can we be sure there were no children born from this text?

---

No, but it would be usual for them to be mentioned by name if they had been born. Hence I concur with CP that they were 'born apparently after' this date. Whatever one concludes from this document, it applies equally to all the children of John and Joan.

John was "aged 30 years and more" in January 1337 at his father's IPM, which would fit. If Joan was married in 1314 she would have been quite young if born after 1304, but it this is not impossible. I see no primary evidence for William's age, or even his existence, cited in CP or Batten.

---

There is a comment by Douglas Richardson in the soc.genealogy.medieval discussion group where he provides evidence that William was not the elder son/brother who dvp but a younger son.  The Complete Peerage would appear to be also be incorrect on this fact.  

I would agree with Andrew Millard, that if there were children alive in 1304 they would be named.

The document in the Regesta is definitely not the same as the ordination of 1304, and it makes much more sense for the ordination to be the source of the comment in CP as this names the two sisters.  The Regesta names the five chaplains, which aren't named in the document of 1304.  It might have been issued to approve their appointment?

---

Well spotted John. I think we've lost the two possible female lines, but I'd never noticed this potential line from William before. We already have a profile for [[Bedlisgate-2]] the wife of Richard Wydeville, Knt. [died 1442]

---

A later post by Richardson complicates the Bittlesgate proposal. https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/wdsXlDQTMOM/m/M5vSURqOAAAJ

Answer 3

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this set of exchanges.

I will detach the daughters Eleanor and Beatrice and merge their profiles with the sisters of the same names, and rewrite the relevant research note on the profile of John de Beauchamp-61.