Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 3.djvu/42

40 DEINCOURT. V. 1384. 4. JonN (Deincourt), Lord Deincourt, hi: and h. He was b. 28 Feb. 1881/2 (posthumous) at Middleham, co. York. He was never suin. to Pari, as a Baron. ( !l ) He m. in HOI Johanna, da. and h., or coheir, of Kobert (dk Grey), Lord Grey di; Rothkrfield, by Elizabeth, da. and coheir of William De la Plaunciie, of Haversham, Bucks. He d. 11 May MOO. His widow, who was 2 years old and upwards at her father's death, 14 Jany. 1387/8, would, if his sole da., have been (according to the modern rule iu the descent of dignities) sua jure Baroness Grey de Rothermeld. She is said to have m. secondly Sir Ralph Botelek, who d. s.p.s.( b ) VI. 1406, 5. William (Deincourt), Lord Deincourt, only s. to and h., aged 3 vears at his father's death. He Ml. Elizabeth, sister 1422 of John, 1st Viscount Beaumont, da. of Henry (Beaumont), Loud Beaumont, by Elizabeth, da. of William (WilUmghby), Lord Willoughby De Eresby. He d. s.p. (1122-23), 1 Hen. VI, when the Barony fell into abeyance between his two sisters and coheirs. ( c ) DEINCOURT OF SUTTON. Barony. 1. " Francis Leeke of Sutton, co. Derby, Knt., ami t rmi Bart.,"C) was on 26 Oct. 1621, a: " BARON DEINCOURT OF 1. io.t. SUTTON, co. Derby."(d) He was, on 11 Nov. 1645, cr. EARL OF SCARSDALE, co. Derby. See " Scarsdai.e," Earldom of, cr. 1645 ; ex. 173G.(°) ( tt ) " The probable cause of this Baron and his predecessor never having been sum. to Pari, was their dying so very soon after they became of age ; viz. Ralph, his brother, a minor, and this Baron about twenty-four or twenty-five years of age. William, his s. and h. the last Baron, died trader twenty -one ; so that only one out of the three was eligible to a seat in Parliament, and as he diil not make proof of his age until just before his death, it is not likely he would have been summoned before he had done so. " [C'ourtkopc.] ( b ) See various versions of her parentage &c. in Banks' "Bar. Angl. Cone." vol. i, p. 236, where an account of her sister (the other coheir) and her descendants is also given. ( c ) These were (1), Alice, aged 18, and (2), Margaret, aged 17. The latter m. before 1433, Ralph (de Cromwell), Lord Cromwell, and d. s.p. 15 Sep. 1455, being bur. at Tattershall, co. Lincoln.. Her sister, on that event, would (according to the modern rule in the descent of dignities) have become suo jure Baroness Deincourt. She, who was then the widow of 'William (Lovel), Lord Lovel (who d. 13 June 1155), d. 1475, leaving Francis, Lord Lovel, her grandson and h., who was cr. Viscount Lovel, in 1483, but was attainted in 1487, when all his honours became for fated. ('•) See " Creations, 1483-1646," in ap. 47th Rep. D.K. Public Records. (°) By Royal lie. 27 July 1835, Charles Tennyson took the name and arms of D'Eyncourt, in compliance with the testamentary direction of his father, " in order (1) to commemorate his descent from the ancient and noble family of D'Eyncourt, Barons D'Eyncourt of Blankney, and (2) his representation in blood as coheir [not, indeed, of the family of Deyncourt, but] of the Earls of Scarsdale, Barons D'Eyncourt of Sutton." As to this last statement, the petitioner's grandmother, Elizabeth Clayton, was da. and h. of her mother Dorothy Uildyard, who was a coheir of her great grandmother, Lady Anne Leeke, one of the six daughters (whose issue became co-representatives) of Sir Francis Leeke, cr. Earl of Scarsdale and Baron Deincourt of Sutton. This might be sonic reason (especially if any property was inherited, which in tliis case was not likely and certainly is not alleged) for taking the surname of Leeke, but none for taking the name of one of the peerage dignities of the Leeke family (Dein- court, or Scarsrlale) as a no-name. As to the first statement, there is indeed a descent of Tennyson, thro' Clayton, Hildyard, Pitt, Savage, Parker and Lovel, from the family of Deyncourt, but the representation of that family, is in the descendants of John, Lord Lovel (and these are to be numbered by thousands), and not in those of his younger brother, William Lovel, from whom Tennyson, Clayton & Co. derive, neither indeed docs the family of Hildyard in any may represent that of Pitt (afterwards Barons Rivers), whose (numerous) representatives (among which Hildyard is not) represent his (cadet) William Lovel.