Re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John de Sutton the younger

Your opinion on the matter is now on the record - such as it is,
albeit in a less substantial and authoritative forum than the one in
which Mr. Montague-Smith chose to publish his conclusions. Readers
can choose to make their own judgments on the varying conclusions.

See other comments below....

On Dec 26, 7:40 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 26, 5:22 pm, jhiggins...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
< On Dec 24, 5:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

< > Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< [snip]
<
< > Also, contemporary records indicate
< > that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely
had a
< > son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH
Warwick 4
< > (1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
<
< >http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42654&strquery=
%2...

< Actually the cited reference in VCH Warwickshire does not explicitly
< say that this younger John Sutton was a son of Joan Clinton, calling
< him only "John son of John de Sutton". Admittedly the context of
the
< reference (the entail of Joan's manor of Coleshill) suggests that
John
< was her son

It is clear from the context of the Coleshill fine that John son of
John de Sutton was Joan de Clinton's son. This fine was a settlement
of Joan's own property which she inherited from her own father. Had
she been dealing with Sutton property, on the other hand, it would
not be so clear.

<But the same context suggests strongly that this John
< died before Joan, since the manor in question passed to a son of
hers
< by a different marriage.

Actually settlements such as the one involving Joan de Clinton's
property were often altered after the fact and the conditions stated
in the original fine were not performed as set forth in the fines. In
a related vein, I encountered two fines of this same time period just
this morning, the conditions of which were not afterwards followed.
As with the Joan de Clinton fine, there is not an obvious reason for
the subsequent change in who subsequently got the property.

Because such settlements were not set in concrete, one can not assume
that John de Sutton predeceased his mother without issue on the basis
of this fine alone, as done by Mr. Montague-Smith. Rather, all we can
tell from this fine is that Joan de Clinton had a son, John de Sutton,
who was alive as of the date of this fine. That's it. For the
purposes of this case, it is sufficient only to show to Joan de
Clinton had a son, John de Sutton. The fine confirms that she did
have such a son.

For the purposes of YOUR case it is not sufficient only to show that
Joan Clinton had a son John Sutton. It's more important to show that
this son John was the only son of that name of his father John. - and
you haven't done that. In fact, you accepted a different conclusion
in your books. (Two John Suttons, one by each wife)


VCH Warwick 4 gives further information regarding the actual fine. It
states Joan de Clinton entailed the manor of Coleshill, Warwickshire
in the first place upon her issue by her third husband, Sir Henry
Griffith, in the second place on John son of John de Sutton, and in
the third upon Baldwin Montfort her son by her first husband, "to whom
it eventually came." I believe there was also yet another reversion,
in the event that Baldwin Montfort's issue failed, for the manor to
pass to Joan de Clinton's half-brother, Sir John Rochford. As far as
I can tell, Joan de Clinton intended the property to go to her
children or their descendants, and, failing that, to her half-
brother. She would have little or no interest in her property going
to a step-son, especially if she had children of her own who were her
next of kin.

You BELIEVE there was also another reversion?? No citation, no
website reference: IGNORE.


So, while it is `clear that Joan de Clinton had a son, John de Sutton,
no evidence whatsoever has been set forth that Katherine de Stafford
had a son, John de Sutton, or, for that matter, any issue at all. In
fact, the records suggest she died childless being about 12 years of
age. In short, Mr. Montague-Smith's theory is based on a house of
cards that's almost missing the whole deck of cards. A little puff
and it collapses.

Another house of cards may also collapse when faced with a puff of
accurate treatment of the evidence. Another "ad hominem" argument....


< If the John Sutton who did survive and have descendants was in fact
the son of Joan
< Clinton, how are we to explain that the manor of Coleshill did not
< pass to him (and his descendants)?

This question is not one that should be asked, as the settlements set
forth in such fines were not always followed.

Funny how settlements may not be followed when it's convenient for
your theory....


<The solution that the elder John
< Sutton had sons named John by both of his wives seems to better fit
< the history of the ownership of this particular property.

To accept the Montague-Smith theory, one has to assume that the elder
John de Sutton had a child by a 12 year old wife, which child
survived, and that his father-in-law immediately sued him for the
return of the money given for the marriage. I find this
incomprehensible, both as to the age of the mother and the suit for
the return of the marriage money assuming the wife had surviving
issue. Rather, the age of the mother and the suit for the return of
the money are both strong indicators that the elder John de Sutton's
marriage to Katherine de Stafford was brief AND childless.

Re-read the Montagu-Smith article on Katherine Stafford - you err when
you state conclusively that she was 12 years old at the birth of her
child. If fact he suggests that she was AT LEAST 14 at that time and
gives examples of other women of the time giving birth at that age.


< The cited VCH reference does not appear to really support the new
< hypothesis regarding the maternity of the younger John Sutton. As
to
< the birth date and birth place of the younger John Sutton (also
raised
< as reasons for deeming Joan Clinton to be his mother), the cited
< article by Patrick Montague-Smith addresses these issues explicitly
< and cites the contemporary evidence supporting the birth
information,
< especially the date (which actually might be a year too late, not
too
< early), and explains why it was reasonable for John to be born at
< Coleshill.

Actually the standard article in print on the Dudley family skirts the
issue regarding the identity of the mother of John de Sutton the
younger. And the much later Montague-Smith article slants the
evidence in such a way to make it appear that all the questions have
been resolved in favor of Katherine de Stafford being the mother of
the younger John de Sutton. This is not a true picture of the
evidence.

And your current hypothesis is also not a complete or accurate picture
of the evidence - merely selecting items that support your case.


< The same article also addresses the lawsuit of Katherine
< Stafford's father following her early death and provides an
< explanation for it. It may be "inconceivable" for a modern
researcher
< to understand the basis for this suit, but we've all heard many
times
< that it's unwise to apply "modern" standards and practices to
medieval
< events.

So why are you?

I made no assertion in either direction....I simply cited the Montague-
Smith article. Another red herring....


< All but one of the supposed reasons for assigning a different
< maternity to the younger John Sutton were covered by Montague-Smith,
< in much fuller detail and with considerable evidence not mentioned
in
< the original post in this thread. The only remaining reason cited
in
< the original post for Joan Clinton as mother of the younger John
< Sutton is a relationship claimed a century later between his
< descendant and William Catesby - a relationship which cannnot
< presently be determined in detail, now that the relationship
proposed
< originally has been dismissed.

The Montague-Smith article was predicated on the premise that
Katherine de Stafford was the mother of the son and heir. A major
red flag that something is wrong with Montague-Smith's premise is the
fact that John de Sutton the younger was born at Coleshill,
Warwickshire, which property was the inheritance of the elder John de
Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton. While the Coleshill birthplace of
the younger John de Sutton is not absolute evidence that Joan de
Clinton is his mother, it is highly suggestive that she was.

Re-read the Montagu-Smith article....concerning the elder John
Sutton's connections to Coleshill.


< At the very least, it seems premature to definitively conclude that
< Joan Clinton was the mother of John Sutton, the ancestor of the
Lords
< Dudley - especially given the substantial case made by the Montague-
< Smith article, which has not been adequately refuted here.

As I said above, I find it incomprehensible that Mr. Montague-Smith's
theory is correct. To suggest that it is "premature" to question Mr.
Montague-Smith's theory is to ignore not one but several red flags in
his proposed theory.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

As noted before, your opinion is on record. It would be best if you
arranged for it to be published in an appropriately refereed scholarly
journal, to properly rebut the original article. Perhaps the editors
of TG would welcome a submission on the subject--since they published
the original article??

.

Relevant Pages