GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1026221600
From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Felton
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:20 +0100
> > By William's first wife to .... Grey he had a son William, who according
> > his inquisition post mortem died without issue, leaving as heirs the
> > grandsons of his sisters of the whole blood, namely William son of
> > Hilton son of Eleanor de Felton, and Robert son of Robert de Swynburn,
> > of Agnes de Felton.
> Thanks to Ian Fettes for pointing out off-list that this is incorrect.
> "Grandsons" was my interpretation of the abstract of one of the
> inquisitions, which called the heirs "William son of Robert de Hilton son
> Eleanor de Felton" and "Robert son of Robert de Swynburn son of Agnes de
> But from a recital of a plea coram rege elsewhere in the inquisitions,
> clear that this is supposed to mean "William son of Robert de Hilton _and_
> son of Eleanor de Felton" and "Robert son of Robert de Swynburn _and_ son
> Agnes de Felton". That is, Eleanor was the wife of Robert de Hilton and
> William was their son, and similarly for the Swynburns.
Some further light is shed on this by Complete Peerage, vol.7, p.25, note a:
"In the return of the heirs to the unentailed property there are clerical
errors (rare in records of this class) which suppose in the pedigree of each
such heir a generation more than can be proved actually to exist."
So the abstract in the calendar is faithfully reproducing the error in the
original record (a footnote would have been helpful!)