Parentage of William Deincourt 9th (aka 2d) Baron

Profile manager: Chase Ashley [send private message]

This page sets forth the evidence and argument presented by Trevor Foulds in his 1995 Thurgarton Cartulary for the proposition that, contrary to the view expressed in Complete Peerage, William Deincourt the 9th baron (or 2d baron, using Complete Peerage's numbering), who succeeded Edmund Deincourt the 8th baron (or 1st baron, using Complete Peerage's numbering), was the son of the John Deincourt of Park Hall who was a distant cousin of Edmund and not the son of the John Deincourt who was Edmund's son.

The evidence cited by Foulds is as follows:

• Edmund the 8th baron had a son named John, who in turn had a son named Edmund, as established by a record dated February 4, 1327 in which Hamund de Mascy and his wife Joan, late the wife of Edmund son of John Deyncourt kinsman of Edmund 8th baron and grandfather of Edmund (son of John), demanded Joan's dower lands.^[1]
• By 1314, it appears that John Deincourt, Edmund the 8th baron's son, had died, that the only child of grandson Edmund (son of John) was a daughter named Isabella, and that Edmund the 8th baron feared that grandson Edmund would die before him without a male heir, as established by record dated February 23, 1314, which states that (1) Edmund the 8th baron affirmed that his surname and arms after his death would be lost from memory in the person of Isabella, the daughter of Edmund Deyncourt, his heir apparent, (2) at Edmund's request, Edmund was granted a license to enfeoff whomsoever he wanted with his lands and tenements, knights' fees and church advowsons and (3) the person Edmund enfeoffed would bear his surname. (Note that this record DOES NOT establish that John Deincourt did not have a son William who was younger than eldest son Edmund, because under English laws of inheritance at the time, the daughter of the deceased eldest son had priority over a younger son.^[2])
• By 1317, Edmund the 8th baron's grandson Edmund had apparently died, leaving only a daughter, Isabella, and, on May 15, 1317, because he feared his arms and surname would become extinct in the person of Isabella, his heir apparent, Edmund the 8th baron obtained a license to enfeoff Master Oliver Deyncourt and John Deyncourt of Park Hall with specified manors and lands, with Oliver and John to regrant the same for life to Edmund the 8th baron, with remainder to William son of John Deyncourt and his heirs.^[3][1] (This arrangement was a typical way, at the time, for a minor (in this case William Deyncourt) to obtain land they would not otherwise obtain by inheritance.) The grant was effected, in accordance with the terms of the license, by a fine of 6 October of an uncertain year (possibly 1326).^[4]
• The inquests post mortem for Edmund the 8th baron held on January 12 and 13, 1327 found that Edmund held lands by fine levied between Edmund, Master Oliver Deyncourt and John Deyncourt of Park Hall with remainder to William Deyncourt, as well as other lands, and that all of Edmund's lands remained to William Deyncourt, except for lands and rents held by Hamund de Mascy and Joan his wife (described above), with William being described as a kinsman, but sometimes (according to Foulds) as a cousin, of Edmund the 8th baron.^[5][1]

Foulds' argument that William Deyncourt was a son of the John Deincourt of Park Hall who was a distant cousin of Edmund the 8th baron, and not the son of the John Deincourt who was Edmund's son, is apparently based on the last two documents described above:

• Re the May 15, 1317 license - Foulds generally appears to try to stick very close to a translation of the Latin. I therefore assume that the "of Park Hall" in his reference to the enfeoffment of "Oliver Deyncourt and John Deyncourt of Park Hall" was in the original Latin, but that the "of Park Hall" was not repeated in original Latin of the reference to the "William son of John Deyncourt". However, absent wording in the license suggesting a different John Deyncourt was intended, the inference is that the John Deyncourt who was the father of William was the same John Deyncourt of Park Hall referred to earlier in the license. This interpretation is also consistent with common practice at the time, where land was granted to persons acting essentially as trustees for a minor, with one of the trustees being the minor's father.
• According to Foulds, the inquisition post mortem for Edmund the 8th baron sometimes refers to William as Edmund's cousin. Such a description would be consistent with William being the son of John Deincourt of Park Hall, but would not be consistent with William being Edward's grandson.

^{[5] [4] [3] [1] [2]}

Sources

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3} Foulds, Trevor. The Thurgarton Cartulary. Paul Watkins, Stamford, 1994. pp. xciv-xcviii.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} "The law of inheritance," Inquisitions Post Mortem: Mapping the Medieval Countryside, inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk. Accessed November 24, 2019.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward II. A.D. 1313-1317. 1898. pp. 651-652. Link to pages at archive.org.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} "Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/285/30", www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk. See number 129. Accessed November 25, 2019.
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and Other Analogous Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol. VI. Edward II. 1910. p. 468. Link to page at archive.org.