On 5/14/2016 7:32 AM, Richard Smith via wrote: > It's "well known" that Sir Thomas Echyngham was the son of Joan Arundel, > and there are a number of gateway descents that rely on this. I don't > seriously doubt this, but I wanted to take a fresh look at the evidence > supporting this for two reasons. > > First, following the source citations in many of the standard secondary > sources, it seems that much reliance has been placed on the 1633-4 > visitation of Sussex (over two centuries after the marriage, and which > contains other mistakes in this family's genealogy) and/or other > unspecified records of the College of Arms. Secondly, while there's > clear evidence that Thomas's mother was called Joan, Nigel Saul suggests > in /Scenes from Provincial Life/ that Sir William had two wives called > Joan. The evidence of the brass is perhaps not ideal, but it seems strong enough to accept in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The obvious question is whether or not the statement by Nigel Saul is a significant enough "red flag" to cause concern. What reason does he give for suggesting that William had two wives named Joan? Stewart Baldwin