I’ve been researching the Beauchamps (before and after Edmund of Somerset Co MD) for about 30 years, on and off, but recently I finally got around to acquiring copies of some important original documents, mostly wills, as well as the latest Debrett report on the Beauchamps of Cosgrove (2005; I had previously seen only the 1986 report), and so I’m newly analyzing what I know about these people.
I see that some people on this website question whether the only link between John Beauchamp and Edmund of Maryland is the name Doggett.I believe there’s more than that, though I still don’t have absolute proof, but I also think that the name Doggett, while hardly proof on its own of a transatlantic family link, is not an insignificant connection.John Doggett, husband of the eldest daughter in a family that lost its two eldest sons, was very likely an important member of the Beauchamp family after John Beauchamp died, a time also when Edmund/Edward, now the eldest son, was just emerging on his own, if I have the children’s ages correctly figured (keep reading).
I also know that a lot of people believe that Edmund of Maryland is the same Edmund (son of John) who was christened in West Chiltington, Sussex, in 1625.If so, then he wasn’t the son of John and Alice (Freeman) Beauchamp, since John’s will reveals that his son Edmund/Edward was born no earlier than 6 Jun 1727.And if Edmund of Maryland wasn’t their son, I at least haven’t a shred of evidence to connect him with anyone in Sussex. (That Sussex Edmund’s father’s name was John is a lot less impressive than the Doggett connection.)
Maybe the rest of you have already sorted all of this out and feel that you have an accurate list of the children of John and Alice Beauchamp, with birth dates where they can be known or estimated and, in the absence of dates, at least birth order.For instance, did they have sons Edmund AND Edward or one son who was variously recorded as one or the other (I now believe there was one son Edmund/Edward).If you already have this part of the family squared away, I’d be glad to have your assessment of what follows here, and any additions or correction you might offer.If you don’t, maybe this will be helpful.
Starting with old news, but just to lay it all out with my best sources:
Jackson and Chester, The Visitation of London, Anno Domini 1633, 1634 and 1635 (London: 1880), Vol. 1, p. 59:John Beauchamp, registering his pedigree in 1634, named the children of his marriage to Alice Freeman in this order: 1. John, 2. Thomas, Alice, Mary, 3. Edmund, 4. Richard.So these children were all born by 1634, and we have the sons’ conveniently numbered birth order.
Mary Turpin Layton, citing Pulborough Parish Register, says that John and Alice were married in Pulborough, Sussex, 27 Dec 1615 and that their daughter Alice was christened there 26 Jun 1617.Alice’s christening is also listed in IGI, with source LDS Film 0918480 (Parish Registers of Pulborough, 1595-1902), but I’ve never found the John-Alice marriage in IGI with the same source cited. Mary Turpin Layton was a good researcher, though I’ve found at least one fairly significant, provable mistake in her conclusions about the Dixon family; I assume that she, as a good researcher, working before various articles on the Beauchamp family were published, either consulted the original parish register or looked at the LDS film of same, but I don’t know that.
In any case, it appears that Alice, if she was christened 26 Jun 1617, as she probably was, was the eldest child of John and Alice.
John Beauchamp’s will, of which I recently posted a full transcription (made from a copy of the original will), dated 6 Jun 1653, proved 23 May 1655, mentions son Thomas deceased (bequests to his widow Sarah and to his daughter Alice), but son John isn’t mentioned at all, so John and Thomas both died before 6 Jun 1653, John apparently without issue.
Note re any sons missing from the will, including Edmund:A will as thorough and businesslike as John’s wouldn’t likely omit a living son (or the heirs, if any, of a dead son) even if the son already had his portion, or was estranged from the family, or had left for America or Zanzibar, especially in testator’s slightly fierce warnings about not preventing executrix from selling certain land as testator directed.I have converted John’s money bequests from their value in 1653 to current value in pounds, and then current pounds to current U.S. dollars, and I discovered that they amount to more than $1 million in current money.This is a will that was ripe for contesting (apparently some part of it was later contested by John’s daughter-in-law, George’s widow).John clearly knew that and wouldn’t likely have failed to make a token bequest to a living son who was not to have more, if only to prevent him from contesting the will or his mother as executrix as she carried out John’s instructions.Or so thinks this Beauchamp descendant, surrounded by lawyers in my branch of the family, but then I’ve been wrong before!
The will lists bequests to John’s surviving children in this order: Edward, Richard, George, Alice (wife of John Doggett), Mary (wife of Walter Wolsley) and Elizabeth.He lists the younger children again in the same order when urging them to seek their mother’s approval before they marry: Edward, Richard, George and Elizabeth.So I believe we have clear birth order of the sons and, separately, of the daughters – sons John, Thomas, Edmund/Edward, Richard and George and daughters Alice, Mary and Elizabeth.Since Edmund was older than Richard in the visitation of 1634, and Edward appears to be older than Richard in the will, Edmund and Edward must be the same person.
When John wrote his will, sons Edmund/Edward, Richard and George were all under age 26 (bequests to each in two payments, first at age 26, second at age 32).Daughter Elizabeth wasn’t yet age 21 (bequest to be paid at day of marriage or age 21, whichever came first).
SO THE CHILDREN’S BIRTH DATES WOULD APPEAR TO BE AS FOLLOWS:
ALICE born before 1634 (visitation pedigree), christened 1617 (Mary Turpin Layton, citing parish register; IGI with parish register given as source).
JOHN and THOMAS both born before 1634 in that order (first and second sons in visitation pedigree).
MARY born before 1634 (visitation pedigree, younger than Alice).Except that John was older than Thomas, birth order of John, Thomas and Mary not revealed by current sources.
EDMUND/EDWARD born after 6 Jun 1627 (not yet age 26 in father’s will) but before 1634 (visitation pedigree, third son after John and Thomas; also listed after Alice and Mary, so he was probably quite young at the time of the visitation, but older than Richard, unless they were twins, which might have been noted in the pedigree).
RICHARD born after 6 Jun 1627 (not yet age 26 in father’s will), by 1634 (visitation pedigree, fourth son after Edmund).
GEORGE born after 6 Jun 1627 (not yet 26 in his father’s will); also in or after 1634 (not listed in visitation pedigree)
ELIZABETH born after 6 Jun 1632 (not yet 21 in father’s will) and in or after 1634 (not listed in visitation pedigree).
Thus John’s and Alice’s son Edmund/Edward was born 1627-1633 and can’t be the one who was christened in 1625 in Sussex.Even if he was already age 26 in 1653 and was due to get the first payment of his share at probate, he was still born no earlier than 1626.
However, John’s and Alice’s younger children, including Edmund/Edward, DO fit the christening records from St. Swithin Stone Church in London -- from IGI, source: Parish registers, 1602-1944, St. Swithin Stone Church, London, where we know that John Beauchamp worked, probably from before 1615, when his uncle John Beauchamp wrote his will, and very likely lived for a time.
St. Swithin records:
EDWARD BEACHAM, son of John and Alse Beacham, chr. 9 Feb 1631 (about age 3 in 1634, so listed in the visitation pedigree after his older sisters, not with his older brothers; about age 21/22 in 1653)
ELIZABETH BECHAM, dau. of John and Alce Beacham, chr. 16 Feb 1635 (about age 17/18 in 1653)
GORGE BEACHAM, son of John and Ales Beacham, chr. 12 Dec 1639 (about age 14 in 1653)
If these records are accurately reported, I think these are very likely the children of John and Alice (Freeman) Beauchamp.Parents’ and children’s names are right, place is right, and dates fit perfectly into the parameters of the visitation pedigree and John’s will.The St. Swithin records listed in IGI also include these children:
MALE BEACHAM, son of John Beacham, born 11 Jan 1630 (no christening date) – could be Edmund/Edward, if he wasn’t christened for a year; not likely Richard, since he should be younger than E/E; more likely a son who died at birth without being named or christened.Absence of Alice’s name perhaps makes this one a little iffier for John and Alice; there might have been another John Beauchamp in the vicinity, less likely another John and Alice.
ELEN BEACHAM (presumably Ellen), dau. of John and Ales Beacham, chr. 1 Feb 1637, died 19 Aug 1639 (so she wouldn’t have been named in the visitation pedigree or John’s will; Alice (Freeman) Beauchamp had a sister named Ellen; she also had a sister Eleanor).
SARA BEACHAM, dau. of John, chr. 22 Jul 1641.
SARA BECHAME, dau. of John, chr. 10 Jul 1642.
These could be two Sarahs born a year apart, or one Sarah with either or both dates miscopied.Absence of Alice again, along with confusion of dates, may make this one iffier.If she was a daughter of John and Alice, she clearly died before 1653.
If these children, or some of them, are the children of John and Alice (Freeman) Beauchamp, then the only child who probably should be here, but isn’t, is son Richard, who, since he was younger than E/E, would have been born/christened 1632-1634 (in time to be listed as the fourth son in the visitation pedigree).It’s possible that he wasn’t christened, or, more likely, that the record is illegible or lost, or just not found by anyone who has actually viewed these records.Or he might have been christened elsewhere.Or these aren’t the children of our John and Alice Beauchamp but of some other John and Alice Beauchamp with three children of the same names and same approximate ages.
The likelihood that these are the children of John and Alice (Freeman) Beauchamp is increased by the fact that seven children of their daughter Alice Doggett were christened at St. Swithin in the years 1645-1663.If anyone wants to see it, I can post my Doggett data later (including full transcriptions of wills of both Alice and her husband, John Doggett).
For now, I will say that John Doggett was the son of John Doggett (or Dogett), “Mercer and Merchant Adventurer of Hamburg” (from his will), who (according to his descendants) was English, born in Suffolk, but operated a textile business in Hamburg for many years; will proved 1653 in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.This senior John was a member of the Merchant Adventurers of England (London merchants organized to trade with Europe).I’ve never seen evidence that John Beauchamp was actually a member of the Merchant Adventurers, but he probably was.He is referred to as a Merchant Adventurer often enough, and as a young man he worked for his uncle John Beauchamp, merchant of London and Amsterdam (from Uncle John’s will).We know he had investments in the American colonies, so it’s entirely likely that he also had investments or traded with merchants in Europe.
The younger John Doggett, eldest son of his family, was born in Hamburg (proved by his will) and was also a successful merchant of London (he left Alice well fixed in her widowhood).He was very likely a mercer (textile merchant) like his father.John Beauchamp was a dry salter (chemicals and the production of dyes), so he no doubt had dealings with textile merchants or was himself involved in the textile trade, a booming industry of that era in England.He and the senior John Doggett might have been friends (so that young John and young Alice met), or perhaps the Beauchamps and the Doggetts all lived in St. Swithin’s Parish, London, and Alice fell in love with the boy next door, or two streets over.Possibly Alice and John moved into the Beauchamps’ house in London after her parents moved to Reigate, or maybe they found their own house in the neighborhood, but they lived in St. Swithin’s or at least had their children christened there between 1645 and 1663, at the same church where Alice’s younger siblings may have been baptized.
In any case, Edmund Beauchamp, who arrived in Maryland well educated and well heeled (since he bought Contention outright, without headrights, and promptly signed it over to his wife), was also a mercer of London, involved in the textile trade, and he had a son named Doggett.If he was John Beauchamp’s son, he may have gone to work for his father or (perhaps with brothers) carried on John’s business after John died.Or he may have gone to work for his brother-in-law, John Doggett.He may have lived with John and Alice Doggett when, unmarried, at least in 1653, he set off for London to make his own mark.If Edmund was about age 21, when his father wrote his will, about 23 when his father died, then John Doggett may well have been the person who guided him as a young mercer on his own in London.
The name Doggett, in any case, wasn’t a very common surname (let alone given name) in England when Edmund lived there and I’ve never found it in early Somerset Co records.Edmund and Sarah didn’t pull that name out of the air, or find it in a baby names book of 1681.Their son Doggett was obviously named for someone.It’s always possible that Ambrose Dixon had a sister who married a Doggett, but we KNOW that Edmund Beauchamp had a Doggett in his family, IF he was the son of John and Alice Beauchamp, who did have a son named Edmund/Edward of the right age to be our Edmund Beauchamp, probably well educated and sufficiently well remembered in his father’s will that he could afford to buy Contention without headrights.This is a lot of speculation, of course, but built on common points between the Beauchamps and the Doggetts.While this doesn’t PROVE that our Edmund was the son of John and Alice, it certainly makes a tidy picture, and the name Doggett is a significant piece of it.
And there's this: John Doggett, Alice's husband, died in 1680 (will dated 26 Dec 1679, proved 6 Apr 1680), the year before Edmund and Sarah Beauchamp named their son (the first one born since John Doggett's death) Doggett, very likely in memory of his uncle.
And there’s also this:If Edmund/Edward, son of John and Alice Beauchamp, was born just prior to 9 Feb 1631/2 (christening date, St. Swithin’s), he’d have received his second payment from his father’s estate about 1663 or 1664 -- £200, today worth about £21,000 or about $42,600.Perhaps as he pondered what to do with this windfall, he was bitten by wanderlust, especially if he stuck around London until 1665, when the plague hit.I’ve always suspected that Edmund probably went to Massachusetts first, since he had an uncle and cousins living there; if so, he may have discovered that the Puritans weren’t his cup of tea and headed south to Maryland, where he may have known the Calvert family or at least had letters of introduction.More conjecture, but one thing is clear: $42,600 would certainly have bought him good accommodations (such as they were) on a ship sailing west, with plenty of “surplusage” to pay for Contention.
Has anyone out there actually seen the parish registers (in England or on LDS film) for St. Swithin or for Pulborough?And does anyone have any comments, additions or corrections to my logic outlined here, based on the records I have?If so, please do tell me!