General Notes

REFN: 2436AN
REFN: P2437
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald . London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874.
The name of this great historical, prolific, and widespreading family, of
which no less than ten branches are recorded in the Baronage of England,
appears in every list of the companions of the Conq ueror, but is not
mentioned by any of the contemporary writers. Nor do the ol d lists in
which it occurs give the baptismal names of the persons recorded, and we
have therefore to search in other quarters for evidence that will enab le
us to identify the particular member or members of the family who may be
fairly presumed to have been present in the battle of Hastings.
In this insta nce, Domesday supplies us with sufficient information to
justify us in admitt ing the probability of the statement of MM. De Magny
and Delisle, that it was a Hugh De Bexuchamp who for his services at the
time of the Conquest, receiv ed four lordships in Buckinghamshire, and
forty-three, or the greatest portio n of them, in Bedfordshire, and was
the immediate ancestor of the Beauchamps of Bedford.
Of his own parentage I have found no note, but he was most probabl y
descended from the Norman lords of Beauchamp of Avranches, seated between
that city and Granville, and a kinsman of the Robert De Beauchamp,
Viscount of Arques, in the reign of Henry I, who is first mentioned by
Orderic under t he year 1171, when by the King's order he seized the
castle of Elias De Saint -saens, who had the guardianship of the young
heir of Normandy, William Clito , with the object of arresting that prince
and consigning him to captivity.
By his wife, unknown, Hugh De Beauchamp is said to have had three sons:
Simon , who died without issue; Pagan or Payne, to whom William Rufus gave
the whol e barony of Bedford with the castle, which was the caput or head
of the baron y, and Milo, the ancestor of the Beauchamps of Eaton. Thus
Dugdale and others ; but there is undoubtedly some confusion here which,
though noticed by the E nglish translator of Orderic, has not been cleared
up by him.
The De Beaucha mps who so strongly defended Bedford Castle were, according
to Orderic, the s ons of Robert De Beauchamp, and not of Hugh, as above
stated; and if this Rob ert be identical with the Viscount of Arques we
have just heard of, the whole line of Beauchamp of Bedford is thrown into
disorder.
Orderic says that Kin g Stephen, against the advice of his brother Henry,
Bishop of Winchester, lai d siege to Bedford, but as it was the season of
Christmas, and the winter ver y rainy, after great exertions he had no
success. Indeed, the sons of Robert De Beauchamp defended the place with
great resolution, and until the arrival of the Bishop, the King's
brother, rejected all terms of submission to Stephe n. Not that they
resolved to deny the fealty and service they owed to him as their liege
lord, but having heard that the King had given the daughter of Si mon de
Beauchamp to Hugh, surnamed the Poor, with her father's lordships, the y
feared they should lose their whole inheritance. (Lib. xiii. cap. xxxvi)
N ow here we have also the information that Simon, who is said to have
died wit hout issue, left a daughter, for that she could not be the
daughter of the se cond Simon in the pedigree, son of Pagan, first baron
of Bedford, is clear, a s that Simon was living in the eighth of John,
1207.
Dugdale, upon no author ity that I can see, calls her the sister of the
defenders of Bedford, whom he describes as the sons of the second Simon
De Beauchamp, steward to King Step hen, which is simply impossible, for
the reason just given. We have therefore three different fathers to
choose from for the progenitors of the line of Ea ton.
Let us now turn to the account of the siege of Bedford by another
conte mporary writer. The anonymous author of the Acts of King Stephen,
says -- "Th e King having held his court during Christmas (a