Corrections to "Plantagenet Ancestry" , Echingham Page 281
This page edited and hosted by Will Johnson, Professional Genealogist
Echingham , pg 281
According to an Inquisition held at Winchelsea on Tuesday after St. Hilary 2 Henry V (15 Jan 1414/5), WILLIAM ECHINGHAM and his wife JOAN had two daughters holding a small portion of land, needed for the rebuilding of the wall surrounding the town of Winchelsea :
"John Rykhill, as in right of Joan his wife, and Elizabeth her sister, daughters of William lord of Etchingham, knight, and of Joan his wife, have 36 3/8th yards in two 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 a fee-farm of 8 3/4d., . . ."
This leads me to ask this question. Given that Joan, wife of John (NOT William, his father, married to Rosa Medlan when he made his will in 1407) Rykhill and Elizabeth are identified as sisters, both being daughters of Joan (dead by 1413/4), wife of William Echingham, how does the content of the Joan Arundel file stand up to scrutiny?
The stated marriage of Joan Echingham and John Baynton looks very dubious, to say the least. Their son and heir Robert is said to have been born (according to his father's inquisition), about 1439. Thus we have Joan (born by 1404 when her mother Joan was dead) having her first son at the youthful age of 35+. Did she marry previous to John Boynton? Perhaps to John Rikhill?
Is there a primary source to indicate that the Baynton/Echingham marriage took place? If, indeed, it did, perhaps William Echingham married another Joan (as well as Alice Batisford) in the years from 1404-1413.
The descendants of Anne Baynton and Mary Gye could be in danger of losing their Plantagenet Ancestry!
Contribution of Tony Ingham
------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 281 of Plantagenet Ancestry has Thomas Echyngham marrying Agnes Shoyswell, daughter of John de Shoyuswell of Shoyswell, Sussex. As Thomas was born in 1400 he would have had to been about 15 when he married her and it says, 2nd Margaret Knyvet about between 1415-1424. The time line seems odd. The only reference for this is from Spencer Hall's 1850 Echyngham of Echyngham and it has no sources for this and everyone copied it.
An article entitled "Ecyhingham Church" by William Slater, Esq read at the Bodian Meeting, July 10, 1856 says this on page 354 -- that he doubts the order of the marriages Also on page 356 it talks about the windows in the church- In the first south window at the very top, az, fretty of G arg sir William Echingham who rebuilt the church. In the first north window at the top, or, on a bend, sa 3 horseshoes, arg, Shoyeswell, wife of Sir William Echingham. Also on page 352 the discussion is of the brass memorials on the tomb of William Echingham rebuilder of the church is Echyngham impaling Shoyeswell. This long before Thomas Echyngham was born. The article quotes notes from 1776 by Haley who wrote about this church and copied down the information.
This article written only 6 years after Spencer Hall's Echygnahm book probably has it right. Barry's Sussex Genealogy also has Wm married to Marie Shoyswell, not Thomas
This long standing question needs to be resolved as it has invaded the Echyngham family line as gospel.
Contributed by Charlotte Smith 14 Sep 2005
To this Leo replied:
Dear Charlotte
You have created several questions I think.
Is it Agnes Shoyswell or Mary Shoyswell?
and did Miss either Shoyswell marry William or Thomas de Echingham?
And was Thomas Echingham _really_ married twice?
When you mention Plantagenet Ancestry by looking at the page number I know you mean the Richardson version. The details as displayed, I think, are possible. They imply that Thomas Echingham, who was 13 in 1413, married first Agnes Shoyswell. His second wife was Margaret Knyvett whose first husband died in 1415. And because of that death the marriage took place after the death in 1415 and by (I presume) 1424 because their son was born about 1425.
You did not mention the daughter shown by Richardson, Anne. Here, in my opinion, Richardson avoided a possible fact and may have covered up an uncertainty.
On page 723 we find John Audley or Tuchet, he married Anne Echingham, widow of John Rogers, and daughter of Thomas Echingham (her mother not mentioned). For her ancestry you are told to go to the Echingham entry on page 281/282. Here Anne is specifically recorded as daughter of Margaret Knyvett and shown as the second child.
But how certain can we be? CP Volume 1, pages 341/342. Here we find that John Audley married before 1456 Anne (widow of John Rogers who died August 1450) and daughter of Sir Thomas Echingham PROBABLY by his 2nd wife Margaret Knyvett.
This tells me that Miss either Shoyswell should be the first wife, but theoretically could have been the mother of Anne. Somehow I doubt this as there may have been about 5 years between Anne's marriages and would that have happened had she been born, say, before 1420? My guess is that Anne is by the 2nd wife also because it is a GUESS by CP. Why did Richardson record this as a certainty?
Did Richardson walk in where other angels fear to tread? David Faris, in the first edition of his Plantagenet Ancestry page 270 also maintains Anne is probably by the _2nd_ wife Margaret Knyvett.
Faris also repeated CP I 342 having him married to (1) Agnes Shoyswell and (2) Margaret Knyvett. Also between 1415 and 1424. Does Richardson show Anne as a second child (was she?) Faris avoids making that assessment.
Faris gives some sources, CP I have quoted. He also gives Paget (1977) page 445. A rather cryptic description of The Ancestors and Relatives of HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. But here we find another discrepancy. Richardson tells Thomas was born about 1425 (aged 20 in 1445) but Faris is a bit more careful on page 96 of his book he says born about 1425 (aged twenty AND MORE IN 1445). Gerald Paget has him born in 1424 and as son of Sir Thomas by Margaret Knyvett but no indication whether Margaret is a second wife.
Faris also as source, to which I have no access Arch. Jour. 7:268 (1850)
Echyngham (1850), pp 13-14.
If I understand Charlotte's message correctly she seems to wonder whether
Sir Thomas Echingham was married to a Shoyswell at all. This certainly
deserves looking in to. Maybe the source quoted by David Faris can give the answer? Is that a better source? But as he has a Shoyswell marriage as well, perhaps we need to look elsewhere?
Contribution by Leo van de Pas 15 Sep 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
PA Echingham: 11 (p. 281) 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]"
Seventeen references are cited to support Echingham: 11.
In June 2006 all seventeen references were examined and none were found to mention that Joan Arundel had a daughter who married John Baynton.
PA Baynton: 12 (p. 68) also concerns the marriage of John Baynton to Joan Echingham and nine references are cited to support the marriage and the contention that Joan is the daughter of Joan Arundel.
An examination of all nine references showed that only one, Davis, assigns Joan Arundel as the mother of the wife of John Baynton and does so by citing the Visitation of Wiltshire. The Wiltshire Visitation does say that John Baynton married "Jana filia Willi Ichingham mil." however no wife of "Willi Ichingham" is mentioned.
The relevant passage from Davis is: "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).
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.
According to an Inquisition held at Winchelsea on Tuesday after St. Hilary 2 Henry V (15 Jan 1414/5), WILLIAM ECHINGHAM and his wife JOAN had two daughters holding a small portion of land, needed for the rebuilding of the wall surrounding the town of Winchelsea :
"John Rykhill, as in right of Joan his wife, and Elizabeth her sister, daughters of William lord of Etchingham, knight, and of Joan his wife, have 36 3/8th yards in two 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 a fee-farm of 8 3/4d., �"
The Echingham/Baynton connection therefore has both an absence of evidence to support it and primary evidence not cited in PA 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.
The Baynton line in Plantagenet Ancestry fails at Baynton: 12, the first generation.
References:
Davis, W.G., �The Ancestry of Abel Lunt (1769-1806) of Newbury, Massachusetts� Portland, Maine: Anthoensen Press, 1963.
Squibb, G. D., ed. Wiltshire Visitation Pedigrees, 1623. Vol. 105 and 106, Visitations Series. London: The Harleian Society, 1954.
Contributors to SGM Discussions: Hal Bradley, Tony Ingham, John Higgins, Will Johnson, Charlotte Smith, Louise Staley, Henry Sutliff.
Submitted by Louise Staley 18 June 2006