Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
NameSir Roger Beauchamp Lord Beauchamp of Bletso 
[60, Beauchamp article, Vol II, p. 44 seq], [157, Sheet 1], [141, p. 9 (on my print), table 7]
[60, Beauchamp article, Vol II, p. 44 seq], [157, Sheet 1], [141, p. 9 (on my print), table 7]Death3 Jan 1380
BurialProb at Blackfirars, London (in will)
General1st baron: 1363. Lord Chamberlain to Ed III's household.
FatherSir Giles de Beauchamp (-1361)
MotherCatherine de Bures
Notes for Sir Roger Beauchamp Lord Beauchamp of Bletso
m. (2), bef 1379, Margaret, probably de Carew and widow of Sir Thos de Grandison, lord Grandison. (Douglas Richardson, March 2002)
CP states "sometimes said to be a yr s. of Giles B. (living 1346)". Others think he was clearly the son of Giles' father; various dates have been cited but with no firm sources: eg that Katherine de Bures was born between 1315 and 1324 and that John, her eldest son was born about 1339 while this Roger was married before 1337 and had a son soon afterwards (D Richardson, "evidently", on soc.gen.med on 20 July 2000; Rosie Bevan confirms this and refers to R A Griffiths' "The Principality of Wales in the Later Middles ages..." pp245,6.) I'll let a few more months pass before I accept this view! (March 2001)
In CP as 1st Lord Beecham of Bletso by summons to Parl on 1 June 1363.
Lord Chamberlain 1376-1377.
His heir was his grandson, his son having predeceased him.
Nicolas' note says that the grandson Roger was found to be this Roger's heir, the intervening Roger having dvp.
The critical thing here is the firm statement that Walter de Beauchamp was Roger's grandsire and that he had a service, on the Infidels, imposed on him by devise [will?] of Walter. This indicates that Roger's father might have been dead when Walter wrote his will. But we are still none the wiser in fiinding our who Roger's father was.
________________
On 29th March 2010, Chris Phillips updated his article on the Beauchamps of Bletsoe with this:
BEAUCHAMP (of Bletsoe)
See also "proposed" section
Volume 2, page 44:
ROGER BEAUCHAMP, of Bletsoe, co. Bedford, and of Lydiard Tregoz, Wilts, sometimes said to be a yr. s. of Giles B. (living 1346), s. of Walter B., of Powick, co. Worcester ...
As stated in Complete Peerage, volume 14, page 45, Roger's will refers to his grandfather Sir Walter de Beauchamp [Sir N.H. Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, p.103 (1826); A. Gibbons, Early Lincoln Wills..., p.29 (1888)]. However, the following evidence shows that it is chronologically impossible for Roger to have been a son of Giles.
At the inquisition taken in 1362 after Giles de Beauchamp's death, his son and heir Sir John was said to be aged 23 years and more], implying that he was born about 1339 [Cal. Inq. p.m. vol.11, no 288]. Even if this age is incorrect, it is clear that John could not have been born before the late 1320s. He was certainly the son of Katherine, the daughter of John de Bures and his wife Hawise (Muscegros), as is clear from the descent of the manor of Boddington, Gloucestershire [Victoria County History, Gloucestershire, vol.8, p.190]. Katherine's age was variously given as 26 and more, 30 and more and 35 and more at the inquisitions taken after her father's death in 1351 [Cal. Inq. p.m., vol.9, no 578], but in any case she must have been born after the death of her mother's previous husband John de Ferrers, about August 1312 [Complete Peerage, vol.5, p.309]. According to Complete Peerage, vol.2, p.46, note f, Giles was married to Katherine in 1329; in this year, the manor of Boddington was settled on the couple [Victoria County History, Gloucestershire, vol.8, p.190, citing CP 25(1)/286/35/34].
So it is clear that any younger son of Giles could not have be born before the late 1320s at the earliest, and more likely would have be born in the early 1330s.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Roger de Beauchamp was active by the mid-to-late 1330s. On 15 March 1336/7, he - described as a king's yeoman - and his wife Sibyl were granted a yearly allowance [Cal. Patent Rolls, 1334-38, p.394]; on 1 March 1337/8 he - again described as a king's yeoman - was granted for life the remainder of the manor of Bloxham, Oxfordshire [Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, p.68] and on 25 October 1340, as Sir Roger de Beauchamp, described as the queen's bachelor, was granted for life the keeping of her castle of Devizes [Cal. Patent Rolls, 1340-43, p.115].
Sibyl was already bearing children at this point, as implied by a petition of Queen Philippa to the pope, on behalf of "her spiritual son", Philip de Bello Campo, son of Roger de Bello Campo, knight, granted 9 March 1352/3, in which Philip is said to be in his fourteenth year [Cal. Papal Petitions, vol.1, p.239]. (A later petition of Philip de Bellocampo, son of Roger de Bellocampo, baron, granted 11 August 1361, states that he was aged 23 [Cal. Papal Petitions, vol.1, p.374].)
[The chronological difficulty of placing Roger as a son of Giles was pointed out by Leslie Mahler in February 1998, Henry Sutliff in April 1998 and Douglas Richardson in July 2000.]
Volume 2, page 44, as corrected by volume 14, page 75:
He [Roger Beauchamp (d.1379/80)] m., 1stly, before 1336/7 ... Sibyl, 1st of the four sisters and coheirs of Sir William PATSHULL, da. of Sir John PATSHULL, of Bletsoe afsd, ... She, who was aged 20 and more at her father's death, 27 Sep. 1359, ...
In the inquisitions taken after the death of her brother Sir William de Pateshull, in September and October 1359, Sibyl is variously said to be aged 20 years and more (Lincoln and Hertford), of full age (Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire), or 40 years (Yorkshire and Northamptonshire) [Cal. Inq. p.m., vol.10, no 520].
In fact, Sibyl must have been much older than 20 at this time, as she was married by 15 March 1336/7 and bearing children soon afterwards (see above).
Volume 2, page 44:
She ... [Sibyl, first wife of Roger Beauchamp (he d.1379/80)] was bur. at the Blackfriars, London.
Douglas Richardson provided evidence that Sibyl was still living 13 October 1367 [CP 25/1/222/96, number 1; see image at AALT] and in Michaelmas Term 1372 [CP 40/448, rot. 157; see image at AALT].
[Item last updated: 29 March 2020.]
________________
CP states "sometimes said to be a yr s. of Giles B. (living 1346)". Others think he was clearly the son of Giles' father; various dates have been cited but with no firm sources: eg that Katherine de Bures was born between 1315 and 1324 and that John, her eldest son was born about 1339 while this Roger was married before 1337 and had a son soon afterwards (D Richardson, "evidently", on soc.gen.med on 20 July 2000; Rosie Bevan confirms this and refers to R A Griffiths' "The Principality of Wales in the Later Middles ages..." pp245,6.) I'll let a few more months pass before I accept this view! (March 2001)
In CP as 1st Lord Beecham of Bletso by summons to Parl on 1 June 1363.
Lord Chamberlain 1376-1377.
His heir was his grandson, his son having predeceased him.
Nicolas' note says that the grandson Roger was found to be this Roger's heir, the intervening Roger having dvp.
The critical thing here is the firm statement that Walter de Beauchamp was Roger's grandsire and that he had a service, on the Infidels, imposed on him by devise [will?] of Walter. This indicates that Roger's father might have been dead when Walter wrote his will. But we are still none the wiser in fiinding our who Roger's father was.
________________
On 29th March 2010, Chris Phillips updated his article on the Beauchamps of Bletsoe with this:
BEAUCHAMP (of Bletsoe)
See also "proposed" section
Volume 2, page 44:
ROGER BEAUCHAMP, of Bletsoe, co. Bedford, and of Lydiard Tregoz, Wilts, sometimes said to be a yr. s. of Giles B. (living 1346), s. of Walter B., of Powick, co. Worcester ...
As stated in Complete Peerage, volume 14, page 45, Roger's will refers to his grandfather Sir Walter de Beauchamp [Sir N.H. Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, p.103 (1826); A. Gibbons, Early Lincoln Wills..., p.29 (1888)]. However, the following evidence shows that it is chronologically impossible for Roger to have been a son of Giles.
At the inquisition taken in 1362 after Giles de Beauchamp's death, his son and heir Sir John was said to be aged 23 years and more], implying that he was born about 1339 [Cal. Inq. p.m. vol.11, no 288]. Even if this age is incorrect, it is clear that John could not have been born before the late 1320s. He was certainly the son of Katherine, the daughter of John de Bures and his wife Hawise (Muscegros), as is clear from the descent of the manor of Boddington, Gloucestershire [Victoria County History, Gloucestershire, vol.8, p.190]. Katherine's age was variously given as 26 and more, 30 and more and 35 and more at the inquisitions taken after her father's death in 1351 [Cal. Inq. p.m., vol.9, no 578], but in any case she must have been born after the death of her mother's previous husband John de Ferrers, about August 1312 [Complete Peerage, vol.5, p.309]. According to Complete Peerage, vol.2, p.46, note f, Giles was married to Katherine in 1329; in this year, the manor of Boddington was settled on the couple [Victoria County History, Gloucestershire, vol.8, p.190, citing CP 25(1)/286/35/34].
So it is clear that any younger son of Giles could not have be born before the late 1320s at the earliest, and more likely would have be born in the early 1330s.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Roger de Beauchamp was active by the mid-to-late 1330s. On 15 March 1336/7, he - described as a king's yeoman - and his wife Sibyl were granted a yearly allowance [Cal. Patent Rolls, 1334-38, p.394]; on 1 March 1337/8 he - again described as a king's yeoman - was granted for life the remainder of the manor of Bloxham, Oxfordshire [Cal. Fine Rolls, 1337-47, p.68] and on 25 October 1340, as Sir Roger de Beauchamp, described as the queen's bachelor, was granted for life the keeping of her castle of Devizes [Cal. Patent Rolls, 1340-43, p.115].
Sibyl was already bearing children at this point, as implied by a petition of Queen Philippa to the pope, on behalf of "her spiritual son", Philip de Bello Campo, son of Roger de Bello Campo, knight, granted 9 March 1352/3, in which Philip is said to be in his fourteenth year [Cal. Papal Petitions, vol.1, p.239]. (A later petition of Philip de Bellocampo, son of Roger de Bellocampo, baron, granted 11 August 1361, states that he was aged 23 [Cal. Papal Petitions, vol.1, p.374].)
[The chronological difficulty of placing Roger as a son of Giles was pointed out by Leslie Mahler in February 1998, Henry Sutliff in April 1998 and Douglas Richardson in July 2000.]
Volume 2, page 44, as corrected by volume 14, page 75:
He [Roger Beauchamp (d.1379/80)] m., 1stly, before 1336/7 ... Sibyl, 1st of the four sisters and coheirs of Sir William PATSHULL, da. of Sir John PATSHULL, of Bletsoe afsd, ... She, who was aged 20 and more at her father's death, 27 Sep. 1359, ...
In the inquisitions taken after the death of her brother Sir William de Pateshull, in September and October 1359, Sibyl is variously said to be aged 20 years and more (Lincoln and Hertford), of full age (Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire), or 40 years (Yorkshire and Northamptonshire) [Cal. Inq. p.m., vol.10, no 520].
In fact, Sibyl must have been much older than 20 at this time, as she was married by 15 March 1336/7 and bearing children soon afterwards (see above).
Volume 2, page 44:
She ... [Sibyl, first wife of Roger Beauchamp (he d.1379/80)] was bur. at the Blackfriars, London.
Douglas Richardson provided evidence that Sibyl was still living 13 October 1367 [CP 25/1/222/96, number 1; see image at AALT] and in Michaelmas Term 1372 [CP 40/448, rot. 157; see image at AALT].
[Item last updated: 29 March 2020.]
________________
Will notes for Sir Roger Beauchamp Lord Beauchamp of Bletso
In his will, dated 10th December 1379, he lists:
His grandsire, Sir Walter Beauchamp,
His son Roger,
His son Roger's son another Roger,
Sybil, late his wife,
Philip his son (bound to Sir John Thornbury, a knight in Lombardy)
Margaret, now his wife.
His grandsire, Sir Walter Beauchamp,
His son Roger,
His son Roger's son another Roger,
Sybil, late his wife,
Philip his son (bound to Sir John Thornbury, a knight in Lombardy)
Margaret, now his wife.