|SOME NOTES ON MEDIEVAL ENGLISH GENEALOGY|
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).