GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1026221600


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Felton
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:20 +0100


I wrote:
> > By William's first wife to .... Grey he had a son William, who according
> to
> > his inquisition post mortem died without issue, leaving as heirs the
> > grandsons of his sisters of the whole blood, namely William son of
Robert
> de
> > Hilton son of Eleanor de Felton, and Robert son of Robert de Swynburn,
son
> > of Agnes de Felton.

And later:
> 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
of
> Eleanor de Felton" and "Robert son of Robert de Swynburn son of Agnes de
> Felton".
>
> But from a recital of a plea coram rege elsewhere in the inquisitions,
it's
> 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
of
> 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!)

Chris Phillips



This thread: