Joan Holand Talbot Dutton Radcliffe

+5 votes

"In three words: Go for it," they say. '''Correct mistakes when you see them'''.

^I saw mistakes. Absolute impossibilities (a husband marrying and having kids long after he's dead, her having kids into her 50s and 60s). 

"First check the Profile Manager's contributions. If the member has been making contributions recently it's more likely that they would appreciate a message from you and will respond well to it."

^There hadn't been any activity on the profile in 4 months. 

"Try to make a rough judgment about how much time was spent adding what you're about to remove or change."

^Without touching the main "Biography" section, or changing anything anyone else had done, I started a "Notes" section, beginning to address her disputed parentage, husband order, and birth date. Two days later, I changed the impossible birth date, and an impossible marriage order, commenting to see the "Notes". I felt I had communicated, sourced, and explained the changes.

Overall, I spent 3 days expanding on the "Notes", acknowledging the many contradictory sources, and explaining why a certain birth date, marriage order, and parentage were more likely than others, much of which was then just arbitrarily tossed out by the profile managers. 

Now it's mostly just a big list of contradictory sources, with no explanation as to why they're all there, except for what is likely the wrong parentage which has been included in the "Biography", suggesting managers didn't even read what I wrote, before deleting it. 

I think this profile does need some kind of Notes/Disputed section, explaining why it's going with certain parents and a certain marriage order, when so many other sources disagree. 

John Burke: daughter of Robert II, sister of Thomas, married 1. Dutton, 2. Radcliffe, 3. Talbot

Bernard Burke: daughter of Robert II, sister of Thomas, married 1. Talbot, 2. Dutton, 3. Radcliffe

Joseph Tilley: daughter of Robert II, sister of Thomas

Edward Baines (1): daughter of Sir Robert (doesn't say which one), married first Talbot, last Radcliffe.

William Alexander Abram: married first Talbot

Egerton Brydges: daughter of Robert (doesn't say which one), married 1. Dutton, 2. Talbot, 3. Radcliffe

John Harland: daughter of Robert II, sister of Thomas

Edward Baines (2): 2 Joans as daughters of both Roberts, marrying 1. Talbot & Dutton, 2. Dutton & Radcliffe, 3. Radcliffe & Talbot

Surtees Society: daughter of Robert (doesn't say which one), married 1. Talbot, 2. Dutton, 3. Radcliffe

F.R. Raines: daughter of Robert II & Maude, married 1. Dutton, 2. Radcliffe, 3. Talbot

Thomas Dunham Whitaker: daughter of Robert II, sister of Thomas, married 1. Dutton, 2. Radcliffe, 3. Talbot

Charles H Browing: daughter of Robert II & Maud, gives Catherine Montfort extra Magna Carta descent, due to this faulty Maud parentage

Bernard Henry Holland: daughter of Robert I & Elizabeth, married 1. Talbot, 2. Dutton, 3. Radcliffe

WikiTree profile: Joane Radcliffe
in Policy and Style by Jason Clark G2G3 (3.8k points)

1 Answer

+2 votes
Best answer

Thanks Jason for all your work on this profile.  I'm not sure if there needs to be a notes section, but definitely a Disputed parents section, and perhaps something similar when it comes to discussing who she married and in what order.

Although you have collected many sources, what I've noticed is that very few of them seem to cite any original sources that I could see (had trouble opening some of the Google books), and I think if such sources exist, we should be trying to find them.  There is some discussion on the Gen-Medieval discussion group, but I don't think there were any conclusions.  See here and here and there could be other discussions.

As well as her parents and husbands, I think her children could also be a discussion point.  I gather that a decision on her parents is based on her possible age and having children with all 3 husbands, but again I'm not sure I've seen any primary sources that name her as their mother?

Lastly I think the beginning section of the biography needs to change - Burke's Commoners is probably the least reliable of all the sources collected so far.

by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (543k points)
selected by Darlene Athey-Hill

Yes, primary sources are always best, but there aren't very many primary sources to work with, at least not easily available, and numerous contradictory secondary sources. I was trying to point out that with just a few primary sources we can sort out which secondary sources are more reliable.

Talbot died bef 26 Feb 1311.

"the heir of Sir Edmund Talbot" & "Joan, late the wife of Edmund Talbot" []

All sources seem to agree Dutton died c. 1326, but he was most definitely dead by 12 May 1328, and Thomas was still under 21. 

"Grant to John Wyard, king's yeoman, for his expenses in the king's service and for debts due to him by the king, of the custody of the lands and tenements late of Hugh de Dutton, tenant in chief, during the minority of Thomas, his son and heir, and, if he die, of the custody from heir to heir." []

The window for Radcliffe's death is 1357-1361, only 4 years, definitely by 1362, when son Richard holds his father's property. 

So, the husband order seems clear. The secondary sources giving 1. Talbot, 2. Dutton, 3. Radcliffe, would be right, about that.

There doesn't seem to be a primary source saying Joan was such and such an age, on such and such a date, but, based on that husband order, and her supposed children, we can narrow the window for her birth date. 

5 kids, after 1326, at a speedy rate of 1 per 1.5 years, is about 1333.5 for her last child. The average natural cut off is about 40 yrs old. 1333.5 - 40 = 1293.5. 4 children before 1312, at the same rate, would have her married about 1305 and starting to have kids in 1306, at age 13/14. 

Marriage 1: c. 1305 at 11.5 yrs old; child 1: c. 1306.5 at 13; child 2: c. 1308 at 14.5; child 3: c. 1309.5 at 16; child 4: c. 1311 at 17.5

Marriage 2: c. 1312 at 19.5 (appears to have taken a more leisurely pace of a child every couple years)

Marriage 3: c. 1326 at 32.5; child 1: c. 1327.5 at 34; child 2: c. 1329 at 35.5; child 3: c. 1330.5 at 37; child 4: c. 1332 at 38.5; child 5: c. 1333.5 at 40

Primary sources cited as supporting her first child being born c.1306/7 is the Inq p.m. of Henry de Shuttlesworth, in 1326, which states her eldest son, John Talbot, is still a minor, making him max. 20 yrs old, and a land grant, in 1328, indicating he was 21 by then.

Born c. 1290 would allow that maybe she was extra fertile and had 1 or 2 after 40, 43/44 at the latest. Born c. 1287 is still having kids at 46/47. I thought 43/44 was pushing it, when I gave the c. 1290 birth date. 46/47 still seems a bit much. Born c. 1273, married to Dutton first, and the other two after 1326, was having 9 children after the age of 53, and impossible. 

The marriage order also gives us birth ranges for the kids. All her Talbot kids should be born by1311, all her Dutton kids 1312-1326, all her Radcliffe kids 1327 or later. 

There seems to be an issue with some Radcliffe children. If they're her kids, then their birth dates should be adjusted to fit in those ranges. If we're fairly certain of a birth date, and it's not in those ranges, then source the birth date, and remove them from Joan, as she can't be the mother. Using sources that say she's the mother, but then just giving the kids random birth dates that don't fit the marriage order, doesn't seem to make sense. As it is now, Julia and Richard Radcliffe are either not her children, or have the wrong birth dates.

The thing with a 1290-1293 birth date is that it makes both Roberts candidates as her father, if MedLands c. 1270 birth date was used, for him (MedLands & Richardson are both just giving estimates). However, as I included, Maud does have a primary source, for her birth date, which makes her about the same age as Joan, ruling Maud out as mother, and still makes Robert I & Elizabeth the more likely parents. As there's no account of Robert II being married prior to Maud, it makes the secondary sources saying she's the daughter of Robert II, likely wrong. It most definitely rules out Browning & Raines, or any other secondary sources, that give her Magna Carta descent, via Maud. 

With just a few primary sources we can, at least, present what is more likely than not. We seem to be using some arbitrary numbers.

Whether there are any primary sources stating she is definitely a daughter of a Robert Holand, or not, is another matter. 

28. De Banco R. 327, m. 236 d.; Whalley Couch. 1005. The interests of Dame Alice relict of Richard de Huddleston, kt., in respect of dower and of John de Radcliffe of Ordsall and Joan his wife, sister of William de Holand, in her right were compounded by money payments; ibid. 1004; Final Conc. ii, 100. []

[6th October, 1336] "John de Radeclif (fn. 14) and Joan his wife" []

"John de Radeclyfe and Joan his wife", [10 Aug. 1350] []

Feb. 1356–7 "John de Radcliffe the elder and Joan his wife" []

"Edmund Talbot and Joan his wife and the issue of Edmund. (fn. 11) These Talbots were seated at Bashall in Craven. Edmund, who obtained a charter of free warren for Rishton in 1310, (fn. 12) did not long enjoy the manor, afterwards known as the Holt, for in 1311 his widow Joan held the two plough-lands in Rishton of the Earl of Lincoln by the fourth part of a knight's fee, the yearly rent of 1s. and suit of court. (fn. 13) There were two children of the marriage, John and Thomas, of whom the former died without issue and the latter succeeded. (fn. 14) Joan, however, married John son of Richard de Radcliffe, (fn. 15) and as late as 1361 John de Radcliffe was holding the tenth part of a knight's fee in Rishton of the Duke of Lancaster. (fn. 16)

Meantime the legitimate heirs of Gilbert de Rishton, seated at Ponthalgh in Church, were making frequent claims to the manor. In 1329 Robert son of Gilbert claimed it against John and Joan de Radcliffe, (fn. 17) John's son Richard being afterwards added as defendant, (fn. 18) and in 1331 Gilbert son of Robert son of Gilbert de Rishton continued the claim, relating the grant by Robert de Praers above recorded. (fn. 19) The defendants, saying that they held for Joan's life only, called Thomas son of Edmund Talbot to warrant. (fn. 20)" []

  • 11. Duchy of Lanc. Anct. D., L 61; two-thirds were in the earl's hands, the other third being held by Mabel widow of Adam de Rishton. The date of the charter must be between 1305 and 1310, for in the former year account was rendered of £5 4s. 7d. receipts from two-thirds of the lands formerly Adam de Rishton's; De Lacy Compoti (Chet. Soc.), 111.
  • 12. Chart. R. 3 Edw. II, m. 7, no. 14.
  • 13De Lacy Inq. (Chet. Soc.), 15. The service and rent do not agree with other inquisitions. At the same time Robert de Rishton had land in Church; ibid.
  • 14. Pal. of Lanc. Plea R. 12, m. 17. It seems clear that Thomas was never in actual possession; see below.
  • 15. See pleadings quoted later; also Coram Rege R. 297, m. 2 Rex.
  • 16. Inq. p.m. 35 Edw. III, pt. i, no. 122.
  • 17. De Banco R. 277, m. 82.
  • 18. Ibid. 281, m. 164 d.
  • 19. Ibid. 286, m. 301 d. The plaintiff stated that Gilbert and Margery, the original grantees, were seised in the time of Edward I, which is erroneous.
  • 20. Ibid.; also 290, m. 311.
  • 21. Duchy of Lanc. Assize R. 5, m. 6. The defendants then asserted that one Richard de Rishton held a fourth part of the manor, but the plaintiff replied that they held the whole when he obtained the writ in Oct. 1355. Edmund son and heir of Thomas Talbot came to warrant, but was under age, so that the suit was respited.

The Whalley Couch referred to in some of the footnotes is actually The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey edited by W.A. Hulton.

Vol 4 has genealogical information on the Holands and places Johanna as the daughter of Robert I, and has all 3 husbands in their proper order.

Although it is mostly original charters, technically the genealogical information is secondary, but it might be the closest we are going to get to a reliable source identifying her parents.  The charter identifying her brother as William is probably the clincher.

Yes, and Dugdale's visitation got the husband order right, and only has Robert de Holand as Joan's father, not stating which one. He does make the mistake of showing John as a younger Talbot son, though, likely due to thinking Thomas was older because he inherited, when it appears John was the eldest, died without issue, and Thomas only then inheriting.

Going to court with the Rishtons, along with husband Radcliffe, over property attained with husband Talbot, and bringing in son Thomas Talbot, also ties her first marriage to her last. So, it appears the same Joan, sister of William de Holand, was in fact married to both Talbot and Radcliffe. 

As for Dutton, in between, he was married to a Joan, and Thomas Dutton is recorded as their mutual son and heir, according to a court accepted pedigree, for John de Dutton, son of Peter, son of Edmund, son of Thomas, son of Thomas, son of Hugh, which sites fines dating back to Edw III:

"also of the manor of Weston, near Runcorne, and 4 acres of land in Clyfton, of the gift of Robert de Dutton to Hugh de Dutton, and Joan his wife, and the heirs male of their bodies; that the same John de Dutton was son and heir of Peter de Dutton, Kt., son of Edmund de Dutton son of Thomas de Dutton, Kt., and brother of Laurence de Dutton, Kt. son and heir of the aforesaid Thomas son and heir of the aforesaid Hugh and Joan, deceased; that the said manor and 4 acres of land were held of the King, as Earl of Chester, as of the manor of Halton, by knight's service, and were of the yearly value of 10l."

"also in fee-tail male, of the manors of Nesse near Burton, in Wyrehale, Berterton, and Legh near Berterton, by virtue of a gift of William de Frodesham, by fine [Edw. 3..] to the said Hugh and Joan, and the heirs male of their bodies"

Report (Deputy Keeper), 1840-1908, Volume 37, p 235 

The Dutton and Radcliffe boys are together in a property inheritance:

"83. At York, on the Octave of the Purification, n Edward III. [9th February, 1337].
Between Robert del Bruch, plaintiff, and John de Radeclyf,
deforciant of 6 messuages, 80 acres of land, and 6 acres of meadow in Penhulbury [Pendlebury]. 

John acknowledged the said tenements to be the right of Robert, for which Robert granted them to John ; to have and to hold to him and to the heirs of his body, in default to remain to John, son of Agnes de Leght, and the heirs males of his body, in default ,to remain to Robert, son of Hugh de Dutton, and the heirs males of his body, in default to remain to Richard, son of William de Radeclyf, and his heirs."

Final concords of the country of Lancaster, from the original chirographs, of feet of fines preserved in the Public record office, London, p 103

Haven't found any primary source outright stating Joan Dutton is the same person as Joan Talbot or Radcliffe, but if the Talbot and Radcliffe ends are fairly solid, Dutton does fit in between, and was married to a Joan. 

You would think (hope) that there was something connecting Joan de Holand to the Dutton marriage?

Though of course genealogies copying other genealogies without checking any sources isn't a new phenomenon.

Related questions

+10 votes
2 answers
+9 votes
3 answers
1.1k views asked Apr 7, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Darlene Athey-Hill G2G6 Pilot (472k points)
+7 votes
2 answers
241 views asked Apr 11, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 4 (47.0k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
198 views asked Apr 11, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 4 (47.0k points)
+14 votes
5 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
0 answers
+7 votes
4 answers
196 views asked Apr 11, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 4 (47.0k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright