On 16/05/16 00:39, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 16/05/2016 6:02 AM, Richard Smith via wrote: >> The will was written in September 1401 and refers to Joan as Lady Bryan, >> implying she had not remarried, yet we know from the letters patent that >> in February 1401 Sir William Echyngham was married to a Joan. Put >> together this suggests that Sir Thomas Echyngham's mother was not the >> daughter of John, Baron Arundel. > > These dates are not necessarily in conflict if February 1401 is > Annunciation style, that is February 1402 new style, and Joan was still > the widowed Lady Bryan in the September before. I did considered that, but unfortunately the date is not in Annunciation style. The letters patent are dated 22 Feb 2 Hen IV, i.e. 1401 in the modern style, and their position in the patent roll is consistent with this date. Possibly there's an error in the transcript of Agnes Arundel's will: perhaps September 1401 is the date of probate rather than the will, and perhaps it wasn't a deathbed will. A look at Agnes's will should answer that. Richard