Hi. Many years ago when I first started researching my family tree on Ancestry, I ignorantly added a person named John Wakeman (?1525-1586?) to my tree, along with his wife "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" (?1526-1587?). I'm now going through the tree and
correcting mistakes, researching information, and verifying what I have, and I've hit a roadblock with trying to find out who John Wakeman was and especially the lineage of Joan Beauchamp. I have found information on various genealogy websites but as we
all know here, there is loads of erroneous data in those sites.

One such site indicated Joan was the daughter of an Anthony Beauchamp and Anne West. The same site indicates Anthony was the son of Richard Beauchamp and Mary Wroughton, and then shows Richard as the son of William de Beauchamp and Elizabeth Braybrook. I
found a Richard mentioned as William and Elizabeth's son in History of Parliament by Josiah Wedgewood on page 54. This documents his parentage and the names of his parents (or at least better than the myriad genealogy sites that lack sources). On page 55
of the same book, it states William was the son of Walter de Beauchamp and Elizabeth de la Roche. The book does not discuss Walter but a brief history of his life can be found on page 348 of The Commons and Their Speakers in English Parliaments, 1376-
1523 by John Roskell. Roskell states Walter was the grandson of Sir John de Beauchamp whom I think may have been either the first or second baron of Kidderminster but I haven't made it that far to confirm.

Can anyone add anything to this or maybe direct me to an online reference source to use to verify these lines?

Thanks in advance for reading. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-4, gdcarl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:00:28 PM UTC-5, fosgate3 wrote:

Hi. Many years ago when I first started researching my family tree on Ancestry, I ignorantly added a person named John Wakeman (?1525-1586?) to my tree, along with his wife "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" (?1526-1587?). I'm now going through the tree and

correcting mistakes, researching information, and verifying what I have, and I've hit a roadblock with trying to find out who John Wakeman was and especially the lineage of Joan Beauchamp. I have found information on various genealogy websites but as we
all know here, there is loads of erroneous data in those sites.

One such site indicated Joan was the daughter of an Anthony Beauchamp and Anne West. The same site indicates Anthony was the son of Richard Beauchamp and Mary Wroughton, and then shows Richard as the son of William de Beauchamp and Elizabeth

Braybrook. I found a Richard mentioned as William and Elizabeth's son in History of Parliament by Josiah Wedgewood on page 54. This documents his parentage and the names of his parents (or at least better than the myriad genealogy sites that lack sources)
. On page 55 of the same book, it states William was the son of Walter de Beauchamp and Elizabeth de la Roche. The book does not discuss Walter but a brief history of his life can be found on page 348 of The Commons and Their Speakers in English
Parliaments, 1376-1523 by John Roskell. Roskell states Walter was the grandson of Sir John de Beauchamp whom I think may have been either the first or second baron of Kidderminster but I haven't made it that far to confirm.

Can anyone add anything to this or maybe direct me to an online reference source to use to verify these lines?

Thanks in advance for reading. :)

Just an update: Since posting this, I managed to find the line from Walter de Beauchamp to Richard de Beauchamp mentioned in A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire by Burke. I also found

Anthony Beauchamp discussed briefly on page 303 of the Complete Peerage XI. He is listed as "Anthony St. Amand" as the Barony of St. Amand was taken over by the Beauchamps upon the marriage of William de Beauchamp to Elizabeth Braybrook. Anthony is
indicated to have been an illegitimate son of Richard de Beauchamp by Mary Wroughton. The book mentions his wife as "Anne" but does not give her last name. All that's left now is to verify Joan as the daughter of this Anthony and then make my way to the
Wakeman line. If anyone has any info about that, it would be most appreciated!

Thanks again for reading.

The name "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" is a red flag the size of a building. This is the critical "link" in your chain, and I would be highly highly skeptical that you are on a path to finding a valid link, unfortunately.

--Joe C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:00:28 PM UTC-5, fosgate3 wrote:

Hi. Many years ago when I first started researching my family tree on Ancestry, I ignorantly added a person named John Wakeman (?1525-1586?) to my tree, along with his wife "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" (?1526-1587?). I'm now going through the tree and

correcting mistakes, researching information, and verifying what I have, and I've hit a roadblock with trying to find out who John Wakeman was and especially the lineage of Joan Beauchamp. I have found information on various genealogy websites but as we
all know here, there is loads of erroneous data in those sites.

One such site indicated Joan was the daughter of an Anthony Beauchamp and Anne West. The same site indicates Anthony was the son of Richard Beauchamp and Mary Wroughton, and then shows Richard as the son of William de Beauchamp and Elizabeth Braybrook.

I found a Richard mentioned as William and Elizabeth's son in History of Parliament by Josiah Wedgewood on page 54. This documents his parentage and the names of his parents (or at least better than the myriad genealogy sites that lack sources). On page
55 of the same book, it states William was the son of Walter de Beauchamp and Elizabeth de la Roche. The book does not discuss Walter but a brief history of his life can be found on page 348 of The Commons and Their Speakers in English Parliaments, 1376-
1523 by John Roskell. Roskell states Walter was the grandson of Sir John de Beauchamp whom I think may have been either the first or second baron of Kidderminster but I haven't made it that far to confirm.

Can anyone add anything to this or maybe direct me to an online reference source to use to verify these lines?

Thanks in advance for reading. :)

Just an update: Since posting this, I managed to find the line from Walter de Beauchamp to Richard de Beauchamp mentioned in A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire by Burke. I also found
Anthony Beauchamp discussed briefly on page 303 of the Complete Peerage XI. He is listed as "Anthony St. Amand" as the Barony of St. Amand was taken over by the Beauchamps upon the marriage of William de Beauchamp to Elizabeth Braybrook. Anthony is
indicated to have been an illegitimate son of Richard de Beauchamp by Mary Wroughton. The book mentions his wife as "Anne" but does not give her last name. All that's left now is to verify Joan as the daughter of this Anthony and then make my way to the
Wakeman line. If anyone has any info about that, it would be most appreciated!

Thanks again for reading.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

The name "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" is a red flag the size of a building.

I was thinking the same. It is unclear what this name is intended to represent. If it means Joan Spencer Beauchamp where Spencer is a middle name, it would be completely anachronistic. Such a 'middle name' would be entirely unexpected in the 16th
century. If it is intended as Joan Spencer-Beauchamp, with a double-barrel surname, again this would be completely anachronistic (people sometimes appear with different surnames in different documents, but two surnames at once would be extremely unusual)
. The final option is that someione is using modern representation of multiple marriages, where she was Joan Spencer, first married to a Beachamp before marrying Wakeman, making pursuit of the Beauchamp lineage a waste of time.

Google searches for the string "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" also give the impression this is something that arose very recently, in the age of internet genealogy.

The take-home: before wasting time on the Beauchamps, you need to get a better grip on what the reality of the situation is with this specific marriage.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:18:10 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

The name "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" is a red flag the size of a building.

I was thinking the same. It is unclear what this name is intended to represent. If it means Joan Spencer Beauchamp where Spencer is a middle name, it would be completely anachronistic. Such a 'middle name' would be entirely unexpected in the 16th

century. If it is intended as Joan Spencer-Beauchamp, with a double-barrel surname, again this would be completely anachronistic (people sometimes appear with different surnames in different documents, but two surnames at once would be extremely unusual).
The final option is that someione is using modern representation of multiple marriages, where she was Joan Spencer, first married to a Beachamp before marrying Wakeman, making pursuit of the Beauchamp lineage a waste of time.

Google searches for the string "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" also give the impression this is something that arose very recently, in the age of internet genealogy.

The take-home: before wasting time on the Beauchamps, you need to get a better grip on what the reality of the situation is with this specific marriage.

taf

I've seen people where the "middle name" is the mother's maiden name, as if the person compiling the data couldn't accept that people haven't always had middle names (and don't always have them, even now).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:

I've seen people where the "middle name" is the mother's maiden name, as if the
person compiling the data couldn't accept that people haven't always had middle
names (and don't always have them, even now).

I have also seen this in a few 19th century genealogies, not out of mistaken beliefs about middle names, but simply as an artificial but convenient way to distinguish multiple family members with the same given name. Unfortunately, later readers of the
books never read the prefaces that explain this usage, and many now adamantly insist these are part of the peoples' actual names.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:07:08 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:

I've seen people where the "middle name" is the mother's maiden name, as if the
person compiling the data couldn't accept that people haven't always had middle
names (and don't always have them, even now).

I have also seen this in a few 19th century genealogies, not out of mistaken beliefs about middle names, but simply as an artificial but convenient way to distinguish multiple family members with the same given name. Unfortunately, later readers of the

books never read the prefaces that explain this usage, and many now adamantly insist these are part of the peoples' actual names.

taf

One of my ancestors is listed as "Elizabeth Estes Hawkes" in the _Maine Families in 1790_ series (an early volume). I corresponded (by US mail) with the submitter of the family sketch and he said she was just plain "Elizabeth Hawkes." He said he had
handwritten out a sketch mentioning Elizabeth 'Betsy' Hawkes and the editor read 'Betsy' as Estes. It's strange what can get corrupted into an additional or middle name via poor handwriting.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:08:34 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-4, gdcarl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:00:28 PM UTC-5, fosgate3 wrote:

Hi. Many years ago when I first started researching my family tree on Ancestry, I ignorantly added a person named John Wakeman (?1525-1586?) to my tree, along with his wife "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" (?1526-1587?). I'm now going through the tree and

correcting mistakes, researching information, and verifying what I have, and I've hit a roadblock with trying to find out who John Wakeman was and especially the lineage of Joan Beauchamp. I have found information on various genealogy websites but as we
all know here, there is loads of erroneous data in those sites.

One such site indicated Joan was the daughter of an Anthony Beauchamp and Anne West. The same site indicates Anthony was the son of Richard Beauchamp and Mary Wroughton, and then shows Richard as the son of William de Beauchamp and Elizabeth

Braybrook. I found a Richard mentioned as William and Elizabeth's son in History of Parliament by Josiah Wedgewood on page 54. This documents his parentage and the names of his parents (or at least better than the myriad genealogy sites that lack sources)
. On page 55 of the same book, it states William was the son of Walter de Beauchamp and Elizabeth de la Roche. The book does not discuss Walter but a brief history of his life can be found on page 348 of The Commons and Their Speakers in English
Parliaments, 1376-1523 by John Roskell. Roskell states Walter was the grandson of Sir John de Beauchamp whom I think may have been either the first or second baron of Kidderminster but I haven't made it that far to confirm.

Can anyone add anything to this or maybe direct me to an online reference source to use to verify these lines?

Thanks in advance for reading. :)

Just an update: Since posting this, I managed to find the line from Walter de Beauchamp to Richard de Beauchamp mentioned in A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire by Burke. I also found

Anthony Beauchamp discussed briefly on page 303 of the Complete Peerage XI. He is listed as "Anthony St. Amand" as the Barony of St. Amand was taken over by the Beauchamps upon the marriage of William de Beauchamp to Elizabeth Braybrook. Anthony is
indicated to have been an illegitimate son of Richard de Beauchamp by Mary Wroughton. The book mentions his wife as "Anne" but does not give her last name. All that's left now is to verify Joan as the daughter of this Anthony and then make my way to the
Wakeman line. If anyone has any info about that, it would be most appreciated!

Thanks again for reading.

The name "Joan Spencer Beauchamp" is a red flag the size of a building. This is the critical "link" in your chain, and I would be highly highly skeptical that you are on a path to finding a valid link, unfortunately.

--Joe C

It raised an alarm to me too. I have never seen middle names used prior to 1700s (or very rarely used) in my research---at least not like this. I was really concerned this was unsupported which is why I asked for help. I'm going to remove her from my
tree and maybe the Wakemans too unless I can find something to support who they are. Thanks for the input.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I would say not supported by any credible source.
However, this is an attempt to link the known Francis Wakeman of Chaddesley and of Bewdley, to his assumed parents John and *Joan* and then give Joan a maiden name.

So it should be rather read Joan, perhaps Spencer, perhaps Beauchamp.

It's a guess.

The ancestry of this Francis, his connections, children, etc are discussed

https://books.google.com/books?id=A3RZAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=Wakeman%20Genealogy%201630-1899&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

however FindaGrave and Wikitree and Geni have horribly garbled versions of this

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

I would say not supported by any credible source.
However, this is an attempt to link the known Francis Wakeman of Chaddesley and of Bewdley, to his assumed parents John and *Joan* and then give Joan a maiden name.

So it should be rather read Joan, perhaps Spencer, perhaps Beauchamp.

Or, even better, just Joan, maiden name unknown, unless someone can put forward a reasonable case for conjecturing a surname. Putting a "perhaps" in front of an unjustified guess just encourages the uninformed to think that there is something to the
claim. There are too many amateur genealogists who think that "perhaps" means "probable" and that "probable" means "proven." I am a descendant of Francis Wakeman of Bewdley (I would not add "of Chaddisley" without better evidence), father of several
New England immigrants, and I have tried to verify the claims made about his parentage. Although I believe that the case for making Francis a son of John and Joan Wakeman is plausible (but not proven), the marriage record of John Wakeman to his wife
Joan does not supply her maiden name, and I have never seen any reasonable evidence for supplying her with one.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:18:10 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

If it is intended as Joan Spencer-Beauchamp, with a double-barrel surname, again
this would be completely anachronistic (people sometimes appear with different
surnames in different documents, but two surnames at once would be extremely unusual).

Looking back at this, what I wrote might be misunderstood so I will clarify. People are indeed sometimes called by multiple surnames within the same document, but it would be in a form like 'Joan Spencer, alias Joan Beauchamp', not as 'Joan Spencer-
Beauchamp'.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)