GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-07 > 1246582627


From: CE Wood <>
Subject: Re: Malpas Ancestry conundrum
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
References: <4ba289b6-3910-4cb8-a8eb-a4f9d3e70466@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>


Sorry - I haven't a clue why, this time, the text doesn't jibe!!!
Anyone help?

CE Wood

On Jul 2, 5:54 pm, CE Wood <> wrote:
> I am having a problem with the ancestry, especially the conflicting
> references to Beatrix of Chester in this ancestry,
>
> Collin's Peerage has:
>
>    John le Belward
>             |
>             |
> William/Richard le Belward I  m.  Letitia, daughter of Robert
> FitzHugh                   Ranulph II, Earl of Chester
>
> |
> |
>
> |
> |
>                                William le Belward
> II                                Ralph ap Einion m Beatrix of Chester
>
> |                                                          |
>
> |                                                          |
>                                  Dan David de Malpas, Le Clerc, m
> Margaret ferch Ralph ap Einion
>
> Banks' Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England has:
>
>  John le Belward
>             |
> William/Richard le Belward I  m.  Lettice, daughter of Robert
> FitzHugh           Hugh Kivilioc, 5th Earl Chester
>
> |                                         _______________________|
> _____
>
> |
> |                                                 |
>                                William le Belward II       m. Beatrix
> Kivilioc Chester               Ranulph II, Earl of Chester
>
> |                                                 |
>                           Dan David de Malpas, Le Clerc, m.  Margaret
> ferch Ralph ap Einion
>
> One Beatrix id noted as probably being illegitimate, whereas the other
> is said to have brought the Barony to her husband, David Le Clerc.
>
> Added to that, the jumble that many have made of the legitimate David
> and the illegitimate David................
>
> Something is not right, but between these two conflicting sources and
> the equally confusing Visitation of Cheshire 1580, I am totally lost.
>
> I did note the brief postings in SGM, but they aren't much help until
> later.  There are more inconsistencies, but I want to get this
> straight first.
>
> Any help is much appreciated!!!!
>
> CE Wood


This thread: