GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Different heirs in Inquisitions post mortem
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 1990 11:07:48 -0700

Comment interspersed.

Renia wrote:
>
> As far as the genealogy is concerned, all the documents you cite verify
> each other.
>
> You mention:
>
> > the Calendar of Patent Rolls for Elizabeth, vol. 4, p. 40
> > (undated), which shows that Robert Shaw was granted the wardship and
> > marriage of Alice Deane, daughter of Lawrence Deane, son of Richard
> > Deane, brother of John Deane, who. d. 9 Oct. 5 Eliz.
> >
> What happened to Robert Shaw? How was he in a position to marry Arthur
> Simcock, if she was already pledged to Robert Shaw?

I believe that there may be a misapprehension here. Robert Shaw was
granted the wardship and the marriage of Alice Deane. This does not mean
that Alice was betrothed to the said Robert Shaw, just that he could
marry her off to whomever he pleased. He may have been kin to Arthur
Simcock and arranged the marriage or the Simcocks may have purchased the
marriage from Robert Shaw.

Kay Allen AG


Did Shaw die? Could
> this possibly be a different Alice Deane? The parish record probably
> wouldn't identify her, during that period. You mention the Recognizance
> Rolls of Cheshire. I've not used this source. Do they firmly identify her
> as daughter of Lawrence, the son of Richard? If this was a different Alice
> Deane, and the one belonging to this family had died, then this would
> explain why her uncle John (the younger) was now the heir, albeit he was
> dead.
>
> Senario 3. Lawrence Deane was dead by the time of these IPMs. A different
> Alice married Arthur Simcock, and this Alice Deane was dead by the time of
> the 3rd IPM, so the next heir was named, John, younger brother of
> Lawrence. But John was already dead.
> Renia

This thread:

• Re: Different heirs in Inquisitions post mortem by Kay Allen AG <>