Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-02 > 1012651005

From: Cristopher Nash <>
Subject: Re: Payn de Beauchamp
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:58:52 +0000
References: <3C5C2622.15141.E8DFB52@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <3C5C2622.15141.E8DFB52@localhost>

wrote on 2 Feb 2002--

>The following pedigree is extracted from "The Beauchamps, Barons of
>Bedford" by
>C. Gore Chambers and C. Herbert Fowler published in the Bedford Historical
>Record Society Pub, v.1 pp.1-25 and tallies with the descent of the barony of
>Bedford as outlined in Sanders' English Baronies p. 10. I've
>extended the pedigree
>beyond the focus of your question for use in the archives.
>1. Hugh de Beauchamp d c. 1100
>+ Matilda
>2.Simon de Beauchamp, King's Steward, 1st Baron d. by 1138
>+ Hugh "pauper" bro. of Waleraund Earl of Meulan
>2.Robert de Beauchamp
>3.Miles de Beauchamp, alive 1141/2 d.s.p.
>3.Payne de Beauchamp marr c 1143, dead by 1155/6
>+ Rohese de Vere, Countess of Essex, da of Aubrey de Vere,
>widow of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st earl of Essex
>4.Simon de Beauchamp, suc 1164/5, d. by 1206/7
>+ Isabella
>5.William de Beauchamp suc 1206/7 d.1260
>+ (1) Gunnora, d by 1207 da of William de
>Lanvelay and Haweise de Bocland
>6.John de Beauchamp d. by 1232
>7. Son and heir d. by
>1234/5 s.p.
>+ (2) Ida, d.c.1263, da of William Longespee,
>widow of Ralph de Somery.
>6.Simon de Beauchamp d.1256
>+ Isabella
>7. Joan d c.1266
>6.William de Beauchamp d.1262 s.p.
>+ Amice d.c.1278
>6.John de Beauchamp d.s.p.1265
>6.Matilda de Beauchamp
>+ Roger de Mowbray had issue
>6.Ela de Beauchamp d. bef 1266/7
>+ Baldwin Wake had issue
>6.Beatrice de Beauchamp
>+ Thomas Fitz Otho had issue
>The barony of Bedford was divided between the issue of the three
>sisters, Matilda,
>Ela and Beatrice. Hope this is of use to you.

And, acc. to CP IX ('Munchensy'), 416-17 -- and John E Morris, 'The
Assessment of Knight Service in Bedfordshire', Beds Hist Rec Soc V,
13 -- Beatrice married (2, as wid. of Thomas Fitz Otes [sic]) Sir
William II de Munchensy/Munchesney (who d. 14 May 1302).

Rosie, re the Hugh->Simon and Robert paternity -- I wasn't able to
persuade myself of it on the basis of Chambers & Fowler's or Morris'
statements (which leave the matter open, I think). Just out of
curiosity, is this 'extension' from the Sanders (with convincing
sources)? I keep stealing ad hoc glances at it when I'm near it but
stupidly never get around to systematically crosschecking my files
against it!




This thread: