Under age at his father's death, John's wardship and maritagium were granted to the Earl of Arundel, Richard FitzAlan (q.v.), who sold them in 1382 for 350 marks to Philip le Despencer, Lord of Carlington. [- "The Dudley Genealogies," James Henry Mason (1987), p. 16]
John Sutton
3rd Baron Dudley
His birth occurred at Coleshill probably because it was the home of his father's nearest cousin, Joan (later his father's second wife), while Dudley Castle was occupied by his father's widowed mother and ( since November 1359) her second husband, Richard le Fissher, with whom John de Sutton was in frequent litigation. After the death of his father about 1369 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel. When John died the barony of Dudley was still in the possossion of his grandmother Isabel.
John Sutton IV (1361-1395), of Dudley Castle who wed Alice de Spencer of Carlington.
It is widely held that John Sutton IV was the son of John Sutton III, (1339-1370) and Catherine de Stafford (1340-1361). Catherine was the daughter of Ralph de Stafford and Margaret de Audley.
(Wikipedia)
Neither PA (below) nor MCA, give any wife for John other than Joan (PA suggests she might be daughter of John, Lord of Arundel, while MCA gives no suggestion as to her ancestry). I have followed AR, which suggests another wife, as his 1st wife and mother of John.
John de Sutton IV, by (1), of Dudley Castle, co. Stafford, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, IPM 1401; m. Jane, IPM 1409. (Adlard says he m. (1) Alice, probably daughter of guardian Philip le Despenser. She d. 1392. He m. (2) Jane. Perhaps Alice (1st wife) was mother of John V). [Ancestral Roots, line 81-34]
Note: According to PA above, John never held Dudley Castle, as it was in the possession of his grandmother, Isabel de Cherleton, his entire life.
John de Sutton V (Weis's number 35) (number 1 above) b. 1379, d. 1407, m. Constance Blount, d. 1432, dau. of Sir Walter Blount of Barton.
2. Burke's Extinct Peerage (not an unimpeachable source), on page 521, under 'Sutton - Baron Dudley' muddles things further. He has John de Sutton, 2nd Baron (presumably number 4 above). 'The wardship of this nobleman, he being in minority at his father's decease, was granted to Richard, Earl of Arundel, and sold by him to Sir Philip le Despenser, in the 5th Richard II, for 350 marks. He m. twice; by his first wife, Margaret, dau. of Roger de Mortimer, Baron Wigmore, he had no issue, but by his 2nd wife, Johanna he had two sons, John and Thomas. The 2nd Lord Dudley d. 1376 and was s. by his son' John de Sutton, 3rd baron, (number 1? above) m. 1st Alice, dau. of Philip le Despenser; and 2ndly Constance, dau. of Sir Walter le Blount . . he died in 1407.
Burke has apparently confused father, son and grandson and mixed up their wives. Not unusual.
If this Alice existed, might she be a daughter of Sir Philip le Despenser, b. 1313, d. 1349 and a sister of Hawise le Despenser (m. Sir Andrew Luttrell) for whom see Wayne Wilcox, 'The Ancestry of Catherine Hamby' NEHGR 145 (July 1991) at p. 268. This is only a guess based on chronology - I have no evidence whatsoever.
Now, I realize I only muddied the waters further, but at least we now know how Alice got into this line. Anyone want to try to sort this out? I wish I could say I hope this helps.
Bill Stone
Baron Dudley is a title in the Peerage of England. It was created in circa 1440 for John Sutton, a soldier who served as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. According to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage he was summoned to Parliament as "Johanni de Sutton de Duddeley militi", whereby he is held to have become Baron Dudley. The title is sometime referred to as Baron Sutton of Dudley. The peerage was created by writ, which means that it can descend through both male and female lines.
It is in fact arguable that the title arose even earlier, as his ancestor John Sutton (died 1359) had a writ of summons to the Council on 25 February 1342, but neither he nor his son (died c.1370), grandson (died 10 March 1396) or great grandson (all called John Sutton of Dudley) were summoned, so that they can probably not be regarded as peers.
Lord Dudley's great grandson, the third Baron, managed to get himself severely into debt and lost the family seat of Dudley Castle to his cousin John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. He became known as "Lord Quondam" ("Lord Has-been" or "Lord Formerly"). However, Dudley Castle and the other family estates were restored to his son, the fourth Baron. He was succeeded by his son, the fifth Baron, who like his grandfather came heavily into debt. To clear his debts he married off his granddaughter and heir, Frances, to Sir Humble Ward, the son of a wealthy jeweller. Frances succeeded him and became the sixth holder of the title. In 1644 her husband Humble Ward was created Baron Ward, of Birmingham in the County of Warwick, by letters patent.
3rd Baron Dudley
His birth occured at Coleshill probably because it was the home of his father's nearest cousin, Joan (later his father's second wife), while Dudley Castle was occupied by his father's widowed mother and ( since November 1359) her second husband, Richard le Fissher, with whom John de Sutton was in frequent litigation. After the death of his father about 1369 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel. When John died the barony of Dudley was still in the possossion of his grandmother Isabel.
John Sutton IV (1361-1395), of Dudley Castle who wed Alice de Spencer of Carlington.
Neither PA (below) nor MCA, give any wife for John other than Joan (PA suggests she might be daughter of John, Lord of Arundel, while MCA gives no suggestion as to her ancestry). I have followed AR, which suggests another wife, as his 1st wife and mother of John.
John de Sutton, of Dudley Castle, co. Stafford, son and heir by first marriage, was born at Coleshill in Arden, co. Warwick, on 6 Dec 1361, his mother probably dying in childbirth. His birth occurred at Coleshill probably because it was the home of his father's nearest cousin, Joan (later his father's second wife), while Dudley Castle was occupied by his father's widowed mother and (since November 1359) her second husband, Richard le Fissher, with whom John de Sutton was in frequent litigation. After the death of his father about 1369 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel. During this period he was married to Joan. He served in the King's Fleet under the Earl of Arundel after he came of age. John de Sutton died on 10 Mar 1395/6. His widow died in April 1408. (When John died the Barony of Dudley was still in possession of his grandmother Isabel) (Joan was possibly daughter of John, Lord of Arundel) [Plantagenet Ancestry]
Note: Burke's Dormant & Extinct Peerage states Richard FitzAlan sold marriage rights to Philip le Despenser - see below.
John de Sutton IV, by (1), of Dudley Castle, co. Stafford, b. 6 Dec 1361, d. 1395/6, IPM 1401; m. Jane, IPM 1409. (Adlard says he m. (1) Alice, probably daughter of guardian Philip le Despenser. She d. 1392. He m. (2) Jane. Perhaps Alice (1st wife) was mother of John V). [Ancestral Roots, line 81-34]
Note: According to PA above, John never held Dudley Castle, as it was in the possession of his grandmother, Isabel de Cherleton, his entire life.
His mother probably died in childbirth. His birth occurred at Coleshill probably because it was the home of his father's nearest cousin, Joan (later his father's second wife), while Dudley Castle was occupied by his father's widowed mother and (since Nov 1359) her second husband, Richard le Fissher, with whom John de Sutton was in frequent litigation. After the death of his father about 1369 his wardship and marriage were granted to Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel. during this period he was married to JOAN_____. He served in the King's Fleet under the Earl of Arundel after he came of age.
Weis, Frederick Lewis. Ancestral Roots of Certain American ColonistsPage 85
Is John IV your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or contact
the profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
(I don't feel informed enough to have an opinion on his arguments. However, I don't understand why Katherine was disconnected as even a wife of John's father.)
I wonder if one of these John de Sutton, Knights (m. Constance Blount and/or Agnes Despenser) is not instead John St. John, Knight of Highlight. Son of John St. John, Knight and Elizabeth de la Bere II. Highlight was part of Dinas Powys held by the de Somery family with Dudley Castle. John St. John was born 1361-1363 and his father died overseas and never 'confirmed him' so as a 'bastard' he lost his birth right to East Luccombe in Devon to his great-uncle Henry. (be aware this is not the de Port-St. John line of Fonmon Castle people like to merge together)
It makes sense for him to be under a wardship during all this inheritance dispute and as a fatherless male heir. He inherited Weobley Castle from his mother. He came into possession of the lands in Dinas Powys after John de Somery died in 1321 and the two estates (Dudley and Dinas Powys) were divided up amongst his sisters Margaret de Somery de Sutton and Joan de Sommery Botecourt. Following the Botecourt line down Catherine Botecourt married Thomas de Berkeley. There is a marriage arrangement naming John St. John party to a marriage with the de Berkeleys. If the de Somery-Sutton line went extinct, maybe John St. John inherited Dudley and Dinas Powys.
This John St. John, Knight of Highlight also descended from Margaret Arundel m. Alexander St. John of Instow and East Luccombe.
He was named in a 1385 list of heirs for lands in Glamorgan that passed to Alice (Blount), Stafford, Sturrey d. 1414 and then John St. John of Highlight. I know for a fact these lands were Highlight (part of Dinas Powys), Odyn's Fee aka Penmark Place, and may have included cwm ciddy because the de Port-St. John family already held Fonmon Castle, Penmark Castle and East Aberthaw by 1290 and were not the 3/4ths of Penmark held by Henry Umfreville. (Richard St. George in the 1500s made up Elizabeth Umfreville heiress story.)
If John de Sutton married Catherine Stafford and d.s.p. maybe they passed to Alice Blount Stafford Sturry and then to John St. John.
Highlight passed to his son Alexander St. John and Odyn's fee passed to his son Oliver St. John. Agnes his daughter held Weobley. Maybe he had another son John that married Elizabeth de Berkeley.
the de Botecourt-de Berkeley lands were apparently held by Edward Despenser in 1373 for the crown.
Did anyone receive a reply about the mother being Katherine & a wife Alice? The names haven't changed and the bio is still worded the same...I would feel embarrassed to comment but I am not alone in asking these questions and am curious if there was clarification made elsewhere.
I'm trying to understand the bio as some of the wording is confusing and it seems by the other comments (unanswered) I'm not alone...
If you look at the bio of this John's connected father it states Katherine was the mother of this John via the "Richardson" used here to say Katherine wasn't the mother?? I am a direct descendant through a few pathways and want to clean up my family trees and don't want to spread misinformation in any profiles I manage descending from these ancestors.
Basically I'm asking if anything new has been discovered or written about as it would help a lot. Thank You! Becky Elizabeth (Simmons-11603)
It seems clear that an 8 year old John was removed from rather than placed under Joan's guardianship, when his father died. I assume but have not researched that all his siblings were under Joan's guardianship as were her children of a prior marriage. In today's culture a mother would object from her son being removed from her care, but I admit the culture of 900 years ago was different.
The evidence by Richardson says that some lord called John his kin, the alleged place of birth and a lawsuit by Katherine's father over a dowry removes Katherine as the mother. Most likely the birth and baptism were not in the same place or even the same year, so is this record a baptism or a birth. Second, last time I checked it takes 9 months to make babies and even 900 years ago the initial process was to be with a current husband and not a future husband. Joan's husband appears to be alive in '61 and so assuming she was faithful then her child with Dudley would be in the middle of '62 at the earliest.
The original thread can be viewed at Narkive: https://soc.history.medieval.narkive.com/mOGdv45y/
(I don't feel informed enough to have an opinion on his arguments. However, I don't understand why Katherine was disconnected as even a wife of John's father.)
It makes sense for him to be under a wardship during all this inheritance dispute and as a fatherless male heir. He inherited Weobley Castle from his mother. He came into possession of the lands in Dinas Powys after John de Somery died in 1321 and the two estates (Dudley and Dinas Powys) were divided up amongst his sisters Margaret de Somery de Sutton and Joan de Sommery Botecourt. Following the Botecourt line down Catherine Botecourt married Thomas de Berkeley. There is a marriage arrangement naming John St. John party to a marriage with the de Berkeleys. If the de Somery-Sutton line went extinct, maybe John St. John inherited Dudley and Dinas Powys.
This John St. John, Knight of Highlight also descended from Margaret Arundel m. Alexander St. John of Instow and East Luccombe.
He was named in a 1385 list of heirs for lands in Glamorgan that passed to Alice (Blount), Stafford, Sturrey d. 1414 and then John St. John of Highlight. I know for a fact these lands were Highlight (part of Dinas Powys), Odyn's Fee aka Penmark Place, and may have included cwm ciddy because the de Port-St. John family already held Fonmon Castle, Penmark Castle and East Aberthaw by 1290 and were not the 3/4ths of Penmark held by Henry Umfreville. (Richard St. George in the 1500s made up Elizabeth Umfreville heiress story.)
If John de Sutton married Catherine Stafford and d.s.p. maybe they passed to Alice Blount Stafford Sturry and then to John St. John.
Highlight passed to his son Alexander St. John and Odyn's fee passed to his son Oliver St. John. Agnes his daughter held Weobley. Maybe he had another son John that married Elizabeth de Berkeley.
the de Botecourt-de Berkeley lands were apparently held by Edward Despenser in 1373 for the crown.
There is also this Maud St. John aka Maud de Sutton https://www.thepeerage.com/p33080.htm#i330794
Cheers! Becky
If you look at the bio of this John's connected father it states Katherine was the mother of this John via the "Richardson" used here to say Katherine wasn't the mother?? I am a direct descendant through a few pathways and want to clean up my family trees and don't want to spread misinformation in any profiles I manage descending from these ancestors. Basically I'm asking if anything new has been discovered or written about as it would help a lot. Thank You! Becky Elizabeth (Simmons-11603)
The evidence by Richardson says that some lord called John his kin, the alleged place of birth and a lawsuit by Katherine's father over a dowry removes Katherine as the mother. Most likely the birth and baptism were not in the same place or even the same year, so is this record a baptism or a birth. Second, last time I checked it takes 9 months to make babies and even 900 years ago the initial process was to be with a current husband and not a future husband. Joan's husband appears to be alive in '61 and so assuming she was faithful then her child with Dudley would be in the middle of '62 at the earliest.
https://lists.rootsweb.com/hyperkitty/list/gen-medieval.rootsweb.com/thread/4750787/