I’m researching Elizabeth Clodeshale who married Thomas Aston c.1385 (previously she was married to William Devereux). She’s commonly identified as the daughter of Richard Clodeshale and Isabel Edgbaston, but that can’t be right – Richard and
Isabel married c.1416 and Elizabeth Clodeshale was already on her second marriage by c.1385. I’ve been trying to unravel this and could use some help please.

I should add that my starting point for this was a previous post in this discussion group, and I’ve quoted some of it here: Thomas de Aston (d. abt. 1412) and His Wife Or Wives: Are There Too Many Elizabeths? (6 Nov 2015 - https://groups.google.com/u/1/
g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/_tK19kTuiZA/m/f-MfaJMRBgAJ)

I should also say that I’ve tried to stick to primary sources as far as possible and have largely ignored the secondary sources which seem muddled to me (or maybe I’m the one that’s muddled, it’s a distinct possibility).


I’d like to start with Walter Clodeshale, Lord of Saltley Manor, who married Alice Bishopsden – they received their marriage settlement of Woodcote manor in 1345 from Alice’s father, Roger:

Marriage settlement of Walter, son of Richard de Clodeshalle of Birmingham and Alice, daughter of Roger de Bishoppesden: Roger settles the manor of Wodecote and his lands and tenements in Little Cokesay, Upton and Bentley, with the bailiffship of the
royal forest of Lekehay upon Walter and Alice and their heirs with reversion to Richard de Clodeshalle and Alice his wife and their heirs. Lands at Wellesbourne, Brymerton and Wychband with lands at Elmley Lovett which Thomas atte Verne and Margaret his
wife hold for life, are settled on Walter and Alice and their heirs, with reversion to Roger de Bishopsden and his heirs: Likewise the Manor of Larkstoke, Glos., which John de Peyto junior and Beatrice his wife [mother of Roger] hold for life; to Walter
and Alice with reversion to Roger and his heirs. Provision by Richard de Clodeshalle for jointure for Alice
Date: Palm Sunday 19 Ed III [20 March 1345] https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/ef41403b-c9bc-4c38-b271-f25778ee1a11


The next person of interest is Walter and Alice’s great-grandson, Richard Clodeshale, who married Isabel Edgbaston (widow of Thomas Middlemoor) in c1416 (sourced from Philimore’s book on the Middlemoors,citing Dugdale).

This three way connection between Clodeshale / Middlemoor / Edgbaston connection is confirmed by the 1422 attempt by John, son of Thomas Middlemore and Isabel Edgbaston, to wrest Edgbaston from Richard Clodeshale after his mother’s death c.1422:

John Middelmore requests remedy, stating that by the tenor of a fine made in the time of King Edward, the manor of Edgbaston ought to descend to him and the other children of his mother following her death. However, her husband, Clodeshale, has forcibly
seized the manor and prevented Pulteney and the other feoffees from entering. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9334389


The descent from Watler Clodeshale to his great-granson Richard is outlined in a claim made in 1426 by Richard and Isabel’s daughter, Elizabeth, and her husband Robert Arden:

“Note that Robert Arden and Elizabeth his wife claim the manor [unidentified] in right of Elizabeth as daughter and heir of Richard Clodeshale, son of John, son of Richard son of said Walter and Alice his wife, who was daughter of Roger de Bishopsdon,
which Roger was son and heir of John de Byschopesdon, Kt. and Beatrice his wife.” (Source: Bishopton manorial records https://collections.shakespeare.org.uk/search/archive/arch-73645)


I feel cautious about this proposed descent because a. that’s a lot of history Elizabeth and Arden are claiming to know, and b. they were obviously self-interested. Plus I haven’t been able to find any primary sources to confirm any of it.
Nevetheless, it’s been suggested that Walter’s son Richard married Joanna de Ribbesford (widow of Robert de Ribbesford, of Bewdley I think), and that Richard’s son John married Beatrice Golofre. I don’t have dates for them but it roughly fits in
chronologically between Walter marrying in 1345 and Richard marrying Isabel Edgbaston in 1416.

Going back to our original person of interest, Elizabeth Aston (née Clodeshale), she turns up in 1410 when Elizabeth and Thomas Aston sell their interest in Woodcote manor to Richard Braz [Brace] and Margaret his wife:

CP 25/1/260/26, number 23.
Link: Image of document at AALT
County: Worcestershire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One month from St Michael, 12 Henry [IV] [27 October 1410].
Parties: Richard Braz and Margaret, his wife, querents, and Thomas Aston', knight, and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Wodecote.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Thomas and Elizabeth have granted to Richard and Margaret the manor and have rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Richard and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies, of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to
the right heirs of Margaret.
For this: Richard and Margaret have given them 100 marks of silver. [http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/worcestershire.shtml]

Thomas Aston had married Elizabeth Devereux (widow of Wm. Devereux d.1385, née Clodeshale) between 1385/7. Two sources confirm this is the same Elizabeth married to both men – the murder of Thomas Jeddefen is the connection:

From Patent Rolls [Cal. Pat. Rolls Ric. II, vol. 3 (1385-9)]:

p. 45: 25 October 9 Ric. II [1385], Westminster. Grant in fee simple, to Simon de Bureley, under-chamberlain, of the manor of Chastelfrome, co. Hereford, the inheritance of Elizabeth Clodeshale, late the wife of William Deverose, knight, of the yearly
value of 40 marks, which has been seised into the king's hands because she covined with others to murder Thomas Zeduyn, the king's esquire, and absconded. (Similar entry, p. 197, 26 June 10 Ric. II [1386])

p. 435: 17 March 11 Ric. II [1387], Westminster
Pardon, at the supplication of William Bagot, knight, to Thomas de Aston, knight, of the county of Stafford, and Elizabeth Cloddeshale, his wife, for the murder of Thomas Jeddefen of the county of Hereford, at Jeddefen on Wednesday after Michaelmas 9
Richard II.


Margaret Brace’s identity is confirmed by this source:

Cal. Close Rolls Edw. IV, vol. 2 (1471-3), p. 243 (#895):

Walter Arderne of the Logge esquire, of the parish of Aston co. Warwick, to Elizabeth Unet, one of the daughters of Margaret Brace, and Roger Monnyngton, and Margaret his wife another daughter of the aforesaid Margaret, their heirs and assigns. Gift with
warranty against the prior of Canwall co. Stafford and his successors, of all his rights in the manor of Wodecote, and in default of heirs to the said Elizabeth and Margaret with remainder to the right heirs of Margaret Brace, daughter and heir of
Richard Clodsale and Joan his wife. Dated 2 May, 12 Edward IV.

Note it identifies Margaret’s parents as “Richard Clodsale and Joan his wife”. I’ve seen it suggested elsewhere that Margaret could have been Elizabeth Aston’s daughter – this suggests not. Instead, could this be Richard Clodeshale and Joanna
de Ribbesford? I’m not sure – Margaret is described as Richard’s heir, but it’s suggested he had a son John, who would presumably have been his heir?


Anyway, the obvious connection is that Elizabeth Aston and Margaret Brace are both née Clodeshale, which along with the Woodcote interest implies a connection with Walter Clodeshale and his wife Alice.
Woodcote then appears again when in 1471, the manor is gifted to Elizabeth Unet and Margaret Monnyngton (daughters of the aforementioned Margaret Brace) by Walter Arden, son of Elizabeth Clodeshale and Robert Arden, mentioned above:

Walter Arderne of the Logge [the manor first appears in records as Park Hall in 1365 but was also known as Le Logge juxta Bromwiche] esquire, of the parish of Aston co. Warwick, to Elizabeth Unet, one of the daughters of Margaret Brace, and Roger
Monnyngton, and Margaret his wife another daughter of the aforesaid Margaret, their heirs and assigns. Gift with warranty against the prior of Canwall co. Stafford and his successors, of all his rights in the manor of Wodecote, and in default of heirs to
the said Elizabeth and Margaret with remainder to the right heirs of Margaret Brace, daughter and heir of Richard Clodsale and Joan his wife. Dated 2 May, 12 Edward IV.
Cal. Close Rolls Edw. IV, vol. 2 (1471-3), p. 243 (#895)

John Arden, son of the Walter, subsequently tries to get Woodcote back in an action against Rowland Ewnett, son of the Elizabeth Unet mentioned in the 1471 transaction above. (Source: Visit. of Warw. (Harl. Soc. xii), 73. cited on this page https://www.
british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol3/pp19-33)

This is interesting because it suggests an interest in Woodcote has also descended via Clodeshill/Edbaston line in parallel to the Woodcote interest transacted in the Aston/Brace line. John Arden’s actions also seem to suggest there was some dispute
between the two lines about who could rightfully claim Woodcote. I guess Woodcote could have been passed to Walter Ardern after Margaret Brace acquired it in 1410, rather than there being parallel interests, but I have been unable to find any sources
suggesting this was the case. Is it possible that Walter Clodeshale had split Woodcote between his heirs? I cannot find Walter’s will so it’s just a theory.

This seems to me key to understanding who Elizabeth Aston (née Clodeshal) is. As I said at the outset, she cannot be the daughter of Richard Clodeshale who married Robert Ardern, she’s a generation or two earlier than that. Indeed, I can’t find any
good source to suggest her father was named Richard at all. I wonder if she was in fact a daughter of Walter and Alice who married in 1345? She married Thomas Aston in c.1385 having already been married to Wm Devereux, so conceivably she could be of an
age which puts her in range as a possible daughter of Walter. Alternatively, Elizabeth could have been the daughter (or widow) of on of Walter’s other sons – there is, for example, evidence of a John Clodeshale, son of Walter (1330: Cal. Pat. 1327-30,
555; 1332: Warws. Lay Subs. 70. (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp73-80#p47 also available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081071&view=1up&seq=573)

So what I'm struggling with most is how Elizabeth Aston and Margaret Brace fit into the Clodeshale lineage, and secondarily, how was Woodcote inherited after Walter and Alice owned it?

Sorry it’s been long-winded, I’m not familiar with the sort of shorthand that I often see in this group. Plus I’m a bit of a windbag.

Thanks for reading!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-5, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

...

So what I'm struggling with most is how Elizabeth Aston and Margaret Brace fit into the Clodeshale lineage, and secondarily, how was Woodcote inherited after Walter and Alice owned it?

I have done a large amount of research on the Brace family which included the above Richard Braz/Brace, and based on the overlap between this research and the questions of interest to you, I can supply some additional information. As to the possible
relationship between Margaret (wife of Richrad Brace) and Elizabeth (succesively wife of William Devereux and Thomas Aston), there are two pedigrees from the late sixteenth century which state that Margaret was a daughter of Elizabeth, as follows.

First, the Unett pedigree in the 1569 visitation of Hereforeshire starts with a certain John Cladsall, who married a daughter and one of the heirs of Lacye [names not given]. Their daughter and heir Elizabeth married Sir William Devereux, and had a
daughter Margaret, who married Brace [first name not given], and had two daughters Elizabeth, wife of John Unett (their descendants being followed further in the pedigree), and Margarett "maried to Bromwiche, sans yssue" (the "sans yssue" part of that
being incorrect) [Frederic William Weaver, The Visitation of Herefordshire made by Robert Cooke, Clarencieus, in 1569 (Exeter, 1886), 66-7 (from Harleian MS. 615, fol. 37b, 38)].

Second, there is a (rather faulty) pedigree of the "Bracey" family (virtually the only source which uses the spelling "Bracey" rather than the more common variants Brace, Braz(e), Braas(e), Bras(e), etc.), dated 1573, and printed along with the 1569
visitation of Worcestershire (although not actually part of that visitation), which, in addition to following the "main" Brace(y) line, gives the descent as follows:

Richard Bracey A° 8 H. 4 m. _____
|
John Bracey m. Margery da. & heire of Thomas Froxmere Esq.
|
John Bracey m. (1) Elizabeth da. & sole heire of Thomas Dragonne le Coneux
| m. (2) Elizabeth da. & heire of ____ Power of ____ [mother of John Bracey, ancestor of the "main" line]
|
Richard Bracey (by 1st wife) m. _____
|
_____ Bracey m. Margaret da. & heire of Sir Will'm Devereux by Elizabeth da. & heire of _____ Clodasll by the da. & coheire of Lacey.

The latter couple are then called the parents of Elizabeth (m. John Vnett) and Margerett (m. Robert Bromwich), but in this case only the Bromwich line is followed (to Margaret's son Richard and grandson William). [W. P. W. Phillimore, ed., The
Visitation of the County of Worcester made in the year 1569 with other pedigrees relating to that county from Richard Mundy's collection (Publications of the Harleian Society, 27, London, 1888): 23, quoting Harl. MS. 1566, fol. 186]
Higher quality evidence which I mention below shows the line of descent from the Braces to be incorrect, but there was already a strong "red flag" here, since the date of 8 H[enry] IV given to the Richard Brace at the head of the pedigree shows him to be
a contemporary of his alleged great-great-grandson's wife.

Further details on the supposed family of William Devereux and Elizabeth (including another alleged daughter, and an alleged second marriage of Margaret, wife of Richard Brace) appear in Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire, 6: 315, but coming from a source
which I have been unable to trace back. If Eyton's statements could be traced back to a reasonable source, that might help a lot.

Obviously, these are not the best quality sources, but the claim that Margaret was a daughter of Elizabeth seems to fit quite well with what other evidence I have been able to find, including the descent of the manor and advowson of Castle Frome in
Herefordshire, which also passed from William Devereux to the Unetts and Bromwiches, and apparently also to other coheirs. In any case, a more detailed look into the descent of the manor and advowson of Castle Frome is likely to be worthwhile.

Obviously, the 1472 close roll you mentioned throws a big monkey-wrench into the supposed mother-daughter relationship between Margaret and Elizabeth. However, since it is the only source for that parentage, conflicting with several other (admittedly
lower quality) sources, it would be nice to confirm the reading by seeing a coipy of the original roll.

In any case, a close reading of the account of Woodcote manor in VCH Worc. shows it to be carelessly written and not entirely correct (like manorial other manorial descents described in VCH Worc.). The claim that Elizabeth (wife of Sir Thomas Aston) was
a daughter of Richard de Clodeshale, great-grandson of Alice (married to Walter de Clodeshale by 1345) is not proven by the alleged source cited (the visitation of Warwick), which has this Elizabeth married to Robert Arderne. The visitation of Hereford
might be correct in making Elisabeth a daughter of John de Clodehale in a previous generation. In general, statements in VCH should not be accepted without first checking the sources cited there, as I have seen too many cases in VCH (especially VCH Worc.
) where sources have been misinterpreted and accounts have been carelessly written in ways that invite misinterpretation.

Based on my Brace research, I can help on the chronology of Margaret's husband Richard Brace. Richard Brace, who was married by 1410, was a son of John Brace, member of Parliament from Worcestershire, born about 1358 or 1359 (assuming that his age of
44 on 5 February 1403 is approximately correct [CIPM, 9: #854]), and died 4 August 1432 [Cal. Inq. Misc. 8: 109 (#184)], the parentage being proven by a Chancery suit in the early 1500's [Early Chancery Proc. C1/287/18-19, C4/117/70] (but with
significant additional argument required to verify that the John Brace who was father of Richard was the same person as the MP). Thus, since Richard Brace was married by 1410, and his father was apparently born in the late 1350's, sometime in the 1380's
would be a reasonable time to estimate for his birth. This fits well with the fact that two of Richard's daughters were still living in 1472 (in fact, his daughter Margaret wrote her will in 1488 [C1/186/10]). So, Richard Brace and his wife Margaret
were probably married not long before 1410, and Margaret was therefore probably also born in the 1380's (or close to that). This would fit well either with Margaret being a daughter of Elizabeth (if the visitations and records mentioned by Eyton are
correct), or with Margaret being a niece of Elizabeth (if the published 1472 Close Roll is correct), or, less likely, a much younger sister. The reason I lean toward the former option is that Eyton's account fits so well with the descent of the advowson
of Castle Frome, but the aunt-niece relationship is also quite possible. In any case, Margaret seems to be a generation later than Elizabeth.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Stewart, thanks for replying, I had seen your previous posts on the Brace family – very useful.

You ask if Eliz. Clodeshale (m. Devereux m. Aston) could have been the daughter of a previous John Clodeshale - did you mean Richard? Looking at the timeline for that, based on the proposed lineage of Walter > Richard > John > Richard > Eliz Arden, the
earliest that Richard son of Walter would have married would have been c. 1365. If he fathered Eliz. Clodeshale immediately, she would have been 20 years old when she married Thomas Aston 1385/6, but of course she'd been married previously to Devereux by
that time. I don't have dates for that earlier marriage, but it all looks very tight in terms of her age for her to be Richard's daughter. Wouldn’t it make more sense if she were Walter’s daughter?

As for her relationship with Margaret, I’m mindful I don’t have dates attached to that whole part of the puzzle.

Would you be able to put your info about the descent of Castle Frome into a post? I’m sure that would help with the dates around Margaret Brace, Eliz Unett, Mgt. Bromwich etc. – maybe once that’s clearer then Elizabeth Aston’s relationship would
be clearer.

Thank you.
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:38:52 AM UTC-7, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Stewart, thanks for replying, I had seen your previous posts on the Brace family – very useful.

You ask if Eliz. Clodeshale (m. Devereux m. Aston) could have been the daughter of a previous John Clodeshale - did you mean Richard? Looking at the timeline for that, based on the proposed lineage of Walter > Richard > John > Richard > Eliz Arden, the

earliest that Richard son of Walter would have married would have been c. 1365. If he fathered Eliz. Clodeshale immediately, she would have been 20 years old when she married Thomas Aston 1385/6, but of course she'd been married previously to Devereux by
that time. I don't have dates for that earlier marriage, but it all looks very tight in terms of her age for her to be Richard's daughter. Wouldn’t it make more sense if she were Walter’s daughter?

As for her relationship with Margaret, I’m mindful I don’t have dates attached to that whole part of the puzzle.

Would you be able to put your info about the descent of Castle Frome into a post? I’m sure that would help with the dates around Margaret Brace, Eliz Unett, Mgt. Bromwich etc. – maybe once that’s clearer then Elizabeth Aston’s relationship

would be clearer.

Thank you.
David

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 7:43:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

Elizabeth's married to Sir William Devereux, would be an addition to his biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_(died_1376/7)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:52:30 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 7:43:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

Elizabeth's married to Sir William Devereux, would be an addition to his biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_(died_1376/7)

Wrong William Devereux

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Yes, William of Bodenham is a different guy I think.

Stewart - I'd still be very interested to hear what you know about the descent of Castle Frome - are you able to share please?

Thanks,
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 8:07:05 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:52:30 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 7:43:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

Elizabeth's married to Sir William Devereux, would be an addition to his biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_(died_1376/7)

Wrong William Devereux

Stewart Baldwin

Not the wrong one. The correct one.
This is how she is dealing with Castle Frome.
If you think it's not, show me another Sir William Devereaux who was dealing with Castle Frome in any manner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 8:45:12 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 8:07:05 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:52:30 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 7:43:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

Elizabeth's married to Sir William Devereux, would be an addition to his biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_(died_1376/7)

Wrong William Devereux

Stewart Baldwin

Not the wrong one. The correct one.
This is how she is dealing with Castle Frome.
If you think it's not, show me another Sir William Devereaux who was dealing with Castle Frome in any manner

How about the very first hit when I googled "William Devereux" "Castle Frome"?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_of_Frome_(1314%E2%80%931384)

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In Burke's Landed Gentry, "Unett"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_Dictionary_o/13SEO75LviUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1453&printsec=frontcover

it says that Margaret who married Brace was mother of Elizabeth, in 1432, (10 Henry VI) who m a John Unett....

Is this 1432 supposed to be the birthyear for Elizabeth? This is how I read it

I also note that this article explains this descent as how the Unett's got Castle Frome
However the Wikipedia article on William Devereux of Frome does *not* specify any children from this second marriage

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 17:20:16 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 8:58:20 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

In Burke's Landed Gentry, "Unett"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_Dictionary_o/13SEO75LviUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1453&printsec=frontcover

it says that Margaret who married Brace was mother of Elizabeth, in 1432, (10 Henry VI) who m a John Unett....

Is this 1432 supposed to be the birthyear for Elizabeth? This is how I read it

I also note that this article explains this descent as how the Unett's got Castle Frome
However the Wikipedia article on William Devereux of Frome does *not* specify any children from this second marriage

I have corrected my assumption, by making 1432 the year of marriage as the flickr entry on the church has it.

However, making Margaret (Devereux) Brace the daughter of this Elizabeth Clodeshale gives three generations of very tight chronology, which might not be believable.

IF William Devereux died in 1384, and *yet* Elizabeth is the daughter of that same Richard who is the son of Walter and Alice who did not marry until 1345, then Richard has to be born 1345/51 to allow Elizabeth to be born 1363/70 to then allow Margaret

to be born 1378/85

Then seems too much to believe.

I agree the chronology is too tight - it seems to me that Eliz. son of Richard Clodeshale means Eliz. who marries Ardern and who is daughter of Rich. Clodeshale and Isabel Edgbaston, I think she's been muddled up with the Elizabeth connected to Margaret
Brace. The timeline suggests to me that the latter Elizabeth, if she married Thomas Aston after Wm Devereux c.1385, could have more reasonably been a daughter of Walter Clodeshale m. Alice Bishopsden in 1345. Wouldn't that make more sense? Agreed though
that 1432 seems like a good date for the marriage to John Unett.

Will - you mention a flickr entry for the church - can you share a link to that please?

Thanks

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 8:58:20 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

In Burke's Landed Gentry, "Unett"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_Dictionary_o/13SEO75LviUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1453&printsec=frontcover

it says that Margaret who married Brace was mother of Elizabeth, in 1432, (10 Henry VI) who m a John Unett....

Is this 1432 supposed to be the birthyear for Elizabeth? This is how I read it

I also note that this article explains this descent as how the Unett's got Castle Frome
However the Wikipedia article on William Devereux of Frome does *not* specify any children from this second marriage

I have corrected my assumption, by making 1432 the year of marriage as the flickr entry on the church has it.

However, making Margaret (Devereux) Brace the daughter of this Elizabeth Clodeshale gives three generations of very tight chronology, which might not be believable.

IF William Devereux died in 1384, and *yet* Elizabeth is the daughter of that same Richard who is the son of Walter and Alice who did not marry until 1345, then Richard has to be born 1345/51 to allow Elizabeth to be born 1363/70 to then allow Margaret
to be born 1378/85

Then seems too much to believe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks Will

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 9:39:23 AM UTC-7, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 17:20:16 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 8:58:20 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

In Burke's Landed Gentry, "Unett"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_Dictionary_o/13SEO75LviUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1453&printsec=frontcover

it says that Margaret who married Brace was mother of Elizabeth, in 1432, (10 Henry VI) who m a John Unett....

Is this 1432 supposed to be the birthyear for Elizabeth? This is how I read it

I also note that this article explains this descent as how the Unett's got Castle Frome
However the Wikipedia article on William Devereux of Frome does *not* specify any children from this second marriage

I have corrected my assumption, by making 1432 the year of marriage as the flickr entry on the church has it.

However, making Margaret (Devereux) Brace the daughter of this Elizabeth Clodeshale gives three generations of very tight chronology, which might not be believable.

IF William Devereux died in 1384, and *yet* Elizabeth is the daughter of that same Richard who is the son of Walter and Alice who did not marry until 1345, then Richard has to be born 1345/51 to allow Elizabeth to be born 1363/70 to then allow

Margaret to be born 1378/85

Then seems too much to believe.

I agree the chronology is too tight - it seems to me that Eliz. son of Richard Clodeshale means Eliz. who marries Ardern and who is daughter of Rich. Clodeshale and Isabel Edgbaston, I think she's been muddled up with the Elizabeth connected to

Margaret Brace. The timeline suggests to me that the latter Elizabeth, if she married Thomas Aston after Wm Devereux c.1385, could have more reasonably been a daughter of Walter Clodeshale m. Alice Bishopsden in 1345. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Agreed though that 1432 seems like a good date for the marriage to John Unett.

Will - you mention a flickr entry for the church - can you share a link to that please?

Thanks

https://www.flickr.com/photos/52219527@N00/49344742896

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:53:22 AM UTC-7, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks Will

Yes it makes sense that Elizabeth who married William Devereux, would be a daughter to Walter, and therefore a sister to the Richard whom is mentioned by Elizabeth Arden much later as her own great-grandfather.

Contrary then to at least one source she was not an heiress, and Castle Frome was the right of her husband, not herself, so it's descent does not impact this Clodeshale ancestry.

This frees up the chronology quite a lot.
It would be helpful to find a specific claim that by William Devereux she had a daughter Margaret m Brace

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Can we also consider what the descent of Woodcote manor means for all this?

My understanding is that Woodcote was gifted to Walter Clodeshale and his bride Alice Bishopsden by her father, Roger Bishopsden, in 1345.

The next record I have for it is in 1410 when Elizabeth Aston (née Clodeshale) sells Woodcote to Margaret Brace.

If Elizabeth was Walter’s daughter, did she inherit Woodcote from him? I would have thought it would have gone to Walter’s male heris, of whom he had at least two: Richard (gt. grandfather of Eliz. Arden) and also John who, along with Walter and
Richard and others, is accused of assault in 1330 (Calendar of the patent rolls 1327-1330 Edward III v.1., available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081071&view=1up&seq=573)
Of course Woodcote wasn’t the only property owned by Walter. He also held Saltley Manor, which according to the following record passed down to Rich. Clodes m. Isabel Edgbaston (Richard is described as Richard Clodeshale of Saltley in this record:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9334389).

So maybe the sons got Saltley and other estates and Woodcote passed to Elizabeth? What do you think?

Do you have any suggestions on where I could look for more detailed records about the history of Woodcote? I’m new to this and I’m not really sure where to look for good source info yet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 11:50:36 UTC+1, Dd Pk wrote:

Can we also consider what the descent of Woodcote manor means for all this?

My understanding is that Woodcote was gifted to Walter Clodeshale and his bride Alice Bishopsden by her father, Roger Bishopsden, in 1345.

The next record I have for it is in 1410 when Elizabeth Aston (née Clodeshale) sells Woodcote to Margaret Brace.

If Elizabeth was Walter’s daughter, did she inherit Woodcote from him? I would have thought it would have gone to Walter’s male heris, of whom he had at least two: Richard (gt. grandfather of Eliz. Arden) and also John who, along with Walter and

Richard and others, is accused of assault in 1330 (Calendar of the patent rolls 1327-1330 Edward III v.1., available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081071&view=1up&seq=573)

Of course Woodcote wasn’t the only property owned by Walter. He also held Saltley Manor, which according to the following record passed down to Rich. Clodes m. Isabel Edgbaston (Richard is described as Richard Clodeshale of Saltley in this record:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9334389).

So maybe the sons got Saltley and other estates and Woodcote passed to Elizabeth? What do you think?

Do you have any suggestions on where I could look for more detailed records about the history of Woodcote? I’m new to this and I’m not really sure where to look for good source info yet.

Forgot to mention, the Woodcote descent is further complicated by the fact that it seems to be in possession of Walter Arden in 1471 when he gifts it to Elizabeth Unett and Margaret Moynington (the daughters of Margaret Brace). Woodcote seems to have
passed down the 'Edgabaston / Saltley' line to Walter Arden, but also down the Eliz. Aston/Devereux/Clodeshale > Margaret Brace line. And then in 1504 John Arden, son of Walter Arden, tries to get Woodcote back from Rowland Unett. To mee, it all smacks
of a long-standing dispute between the two lines as to who was the rightful heir of Woodcote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The second wife of Sir William Devereux, Lucy Burnell, is not included as a profile on Wikitree and therefore the Devereux of Frome line is absent or possibly not connected properly. This is what I have found with my Devereux research and so I see more
work must be done.

Darrell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 8:07:05 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:52:30 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 7:43:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

It may not be that helpful.
Castle Frome was *granted* in 1341 to Sir William Devereux

https://books.google.com/books?id=7eMHAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=castle%20frome%20herefordshire&f=false

Elizabeth's married to Sir William Devereux, would be an addition to his biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Devereux_(died_1376/7)

Wrong William Devereux

Stewart Baldwin

Not the wrong one. The correct one.
This is how she is dealing with Castle Frome.
If you think it's not, show me another Sir William Devereaux who was dealing with Castle Frome in any manner

I was about to say it definitely wasn't William Devereux of Bodenham! It is so very easy to be confused by the Devereux family. After going through a pretty intensive research process to sort out my Bodenham Devereux line, I would have recognized the
Clodeshale connection right off but as I said it's not him. I'm not surprised at all by the mystery...

Darrell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:06:04 PM UTC-4, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

I’m researching Elizabeth Clodeshale who married Thomas Aston c.1385 (previously she was married to William Devereux). She’s commonly identified as the daughter of Richard Clodeshale and Isabel Edgbaston, but that can’t be right – Richard and

Isabel married c.1416 and Elizabeth Clodeshale was already on her second marriage by c.1385. I’ve been trying to unravel this and could use some help please.

I should add that my starting point for this was a previous post in this discussion group, and I’ve quoted some of it here: Thomas de Aston (d. abt. 1412) and His Wife Or Wives: Are There Too Many Elizabeths? (6 Nov 2015 - https://groups.google.com/u/

1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/_tK19kTuiZA/m/f-MfaJMRBgAJ)

I should also say that I’ve tried to stick to primary sources as far as possible and have largely ignored the secondary sources which seem muddled to me (or maybe I’m the one that’s muddled, it’s a distinct possibility).

I have found another source for your Elizabeth Clodeshale and some bits of information you might find helpful.


CLODESHALE NOTES:
Morgan George Watkins. ''Collections towards the history and antiquities of the county of Hereford. In continuation of Duncumb’s history'', Hundred of Radlow, (Hereford: Jakeman & Carver, 1902), p. 43. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-
CSZZ-FQWM-M?i=338&cat=202072

DEVEREUX PEDIGREE WITH CLODESHALE:
Morgan George Watkins. ''Collections towards the history and antiquities of the county of Hereford. In continuation of Duncumb’s history'', Hundred of Radlow, (Hereford: Jakeman & Carver, 1902), p. 49. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-
CSZZ-FQWS-7?i=341&cat=202072

Darrell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks Darrell, that's helpful.

Does anyone have access to this source document:
Close, 12 Edw. IV, m. 31.?

I found it referenced in an online article about Woodcote Manor (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol3/pp19-33#h3-0003) which was held by the Clodeshales, but I can only find a paid-for version.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Also can anyone tell me where I can find these docs?
- De Banco R. 20 Hen. VII, m. 397 (Kings Bench, right?)
- Early Chan. Proc. bdle. 120, no. 54.

I'm hoping to find evidence of the arguments proposed by the parties involved about their right to hold Woodcote manor.

Thanks

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 4:09:01 AM UTC-4, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks Darrell, that's helpful.

Does anyone have access to this source document:
Close, 12 Edw. IV, m. 31.?

I found it referenced in an online article about Woodcote Manor (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol3/pp19-33#h3-0003) which was held by the Clodeshales, but I can only find a paid-for version.

You're welcome!

I also could not find Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward IV: Volume 2, 1468-1476 (published 1953), which is exactly what you need.

Darrell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I have been looking at the Clodesdales during the last few days, and I believe that I have discovered enough of the chronology to nail down the parentage of both Elizabdeth Clodesdale/Devereux/Aston and Margaret, wife of Richard Brace. Dugdales History
of Warwickshire, 2: 884 gives the following genealogical table, also giving dates (in year of the reign format) to some of them showing when they were known to be alive (to which I have added a conversion to the usual dates)

Walter de Clodshale, m. (1) Agnes [5E2, 1311-2], m. (2) Alice, dau. & h. of Roger de Bishopesden [19E3, 1345-6]
|
Richard de Clodshale [24E3, 1350-1] m. Johanna, widow of Robert de Ribsford
|
John de Clodshale [47E3, 1373-4] m. Beatrix, sister & h. of William Golofre [47E3, 1373-4]
|
Richard de Clodshale [3H5, 1415-6] m. Isabella, dau. & h. of Richard de Edgbaston, widow of Thomas Midlemore
|
Elizabeth (dau. & heir) m. Robert Ardern of Park Hall [4H6, 1425-6]

The Visitation of the County of Warwick in the year 1619 (Harleian Soc. 12, 1877): 74 has a pedigree of Golofre and Clodishall immediately following the Arden/Ardren pedigree, which, in addition to giving the ancestry of Beatrix Golofre for four
generations, gives the same line of descent for the Clodeshales, except that Walter's first wife Agnes is not mentioned, and the wives of the two Richard de Clodeshales are not named. Both this visitation and Dugdale's pedigree on p. 82 shown above make
Alice the mother of the first Richard, but as other records show, this is chronologically impossible, and Richard must have been a son of Walter's first wife Agnes.

In the history of Clodeshale's Chantry in Birmingham appearing in Dugdale's History of Warwickshire, 2: 908-9, citing partly the Patent Rolls and partly a manuscript in the possession of "S.A." (whoever that was), in 4 Edward III, Walter de Clodshale of
Saltley gave 4 messuages, 20 acres of land, and 18d. of rent, all in the town of Birmingham, for the maintenance of one priest to celebrate divine service there, for the souls of the said Walter and Agnes his wife, their ancestors, and all the faithful
deceased. Then, in 21 Edward III, Richard de Clodshale (son and heir of the same Walter) gave 5 messuages, ten acres of land, and 10s. yearly rent for another priest to celebrate divine service at the same altar, for the good estate of the said Richard
and Alice his wife during their lives, and for their souls after their departure, and for the sould of his father and mother and of Fouk de Bermingham and Joan his wife, and all the faithful deceased. Clearly, Richard de Clodeshale was born long before
the marriage settlement of Walter de Clodeshale and Alice de Bishopesden. These records (and others) also show that before marrying Joan/Johanna, Richard had a first wife named Alice. A record cited below will show that he also apparently had a third
wife, also named Alice.

Hoever, the most important problem for the specific questions pursued in this thread is the chronology of the marriage of Richard's second wife Joan. Important information about this, and also about her parentage, appears in two entries fro the rolls of
the Common Pleas Court ("De Banco") which were abstracted in Collections for a History of Staffordshire (William Salt Soc., vol. 12), as follows (with citations to the original images at AALT added by me)

Coll. Hist. Staff. 12 (1891): 45, from Michaelmas term, 19 E. III [1345] [CP40/344, m. 515 (AALT image 1043)].
Salop. Robert de Ribbesford, and Joan, his wife, and Elizabeth de Lacy, sued Roger de Asteleyo.and Margaret, his wife, and John, son of the said Eoger, for a messuage, and a carucate of land, etc., in Huggeleye, which Walter de Beysyn had given to John
de Lacy, and Margaret, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and which after the death of John and Margaret, and of Gilbert, their son and heir, should descend to the said Joan and Elizabeth, as sisters and heirs of the said Gilbert. The defendants
appeared and took exception to the writ because Elizabeth, subsequent to the date of the writ, viz., 20 Sept., 18 E. Ill, had been married to one Walter de Baskerville, and she was now "cooperta" by him. As the plaintiffs could not deny this, the suit
was dismissed, m. 515.

Coll. Hist. Staff. 12 (1891): 126, from Easter term, 28E3 [1354] [CP40/377, m. 120d (AALT image 4916)]
Salop. Richard de Clodeshale, and Joan his wife, and John de Delves, and Elizabeth his wife sued Roger de Astele, and John his son for a messuage, 100 acres of land, eight acres of meadow, six acres of pasture, twenty acres of wood, and 30s. of rent in
Huggeley, which Walter Beysin had given to John Lacy in frank marriage with Margaret his daughter, and which after the death of the said John and Margaret, and of Gilbert their son, should descend to the said Joan and Elizabeth as sisters and heirs of
Gilbert. Roger and Joan called to warranty William, son and heir of William de Farnecote, who was to be summoned for the Quindene of St. Michael. A postscript states that on that day the parties appeared when it was testified that Joan was dead, and the
suit was dismissed sine die. m. 120, dorso.

So, Joan de Lacy was married to her first husband Robert de Ribsford/Ribbesford in Fall 1345, and died between the Easter and Michaelmas terms in 1354, at which time she was married to Richard de Clodeshale. These record also identify Joan's parents and
her maternal grandfather. In my somewhat random page-by-page searches of the Common Pleas rolls which I have conducted over the last several years, searching for information on the Brace and Doverdale families, I have run across several references to
the Clodeshale family, including a few of definite interest here.

In Easter and Trinity terms, 25 Edward III [1351], Richard Clodeshale and his wife Joan and others were accused raids against lands of Thomas de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, at Lyndone [CP40/365, m. 47d (AALT image 2533), CP40/366, m. 44 (AALT image 2906)]
. Richard also appears with his wife Joan in another record (concerning the manor of Pebmore) for Trinity term, 25 Edward III [1351] [CP40/366, m. 49 (AALT image 2915)]. So, Richard de Clodeshale married his wife Joan de Lacy (widow of Robert de
Ribbesford) between Fall 1345 and Spring 1351, and Joan died in 1354.

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for her
third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].

So Elizabeth de Clodeshale was married to William de Devereux before early 1374, and Richard de Clodehale was deceased by that time, leaving a widow Alice who was suing for her third part. Virtually all sources which say anything about the mother of
Elizabeth make her a mamber of the Lacy family, and indeed, that is the best way to explain how she brought the manor of Castle Frome to her two husbands. Thus, it seems virtually certain that this Elizabeth Clodeshale was a daughter of Richard de
Clodeshale and Joan de Lacy.

As for Margaret, wife of Richard Brace, as we have already seen, visitations and other hard-to-follow sources make her a daughter of William de Devereux and Elizabeth de Clodeshale, while the 1472 Close Roll contradicts this by making Margaret a daughter
of a Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife. However, it would be extraordinarily improbable that Margaret was a sister of Elizabeth, as we would then have Margaret born in 1354 or before, therefore older than John Brace, father of her future husband
Richard Brace, and mother of at least one daughter who lived until 1488. A Devil's Advocate could argue that this is within the realm of possibility, but only by stretching everything to its limit. Arguing that Margaret was a daughter of the younger
Richard de Clodeshale by a previously unknown additional wife Joan, and thus a great-granddaughter of Richard and Joan, would compress the chronology in the other direction, in addition to requiring an additional wife for the younger Richard and not
fitting well with information about the advowson of Castle Frome given below. Since the 1472 Close Roll appears to be incorrect, he obvious conclusion would be that it accidentally omitted a generation (or the editor missed it while editing), and that
Margaret Brace was a [daughter of William Devereux and Elizabeth,] daughter of Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife.

Additional evidence for this comes from the descent of the advowson of Castle Frome, which does not fit well with Margaret Brace being a daughter of the younger Richard Clodeshale. A skeleton genealogy is supplied by a couple of nineteenth century
secondary sources, based on sources that are difficult to trace back. However, this skeleton genealogy does fit well with what evidence I could find regarding the possession of the manors of Woodcote and Castle Frome and the advowson of Castle Frome.

One of these secondary sources is Charles J. Robinson, "A History of the Castles of Herefordshire and their Lords" (London & Hereford, 1869). According to the author, Robinson's account of the manor of Castle Frome [Robinson, pp. 62-4] is "chiefly
derived" from a series of title deeds in the possession of Rev. William Poole, then the owner of the manor. Robinson states that at the death of Elizabeth (wife of William Devereux and Thomas Aston), Castle Frome was "divided between the two daughters
of her first husband, viz., Margafret, wife of Richard Brace of Wiche, County Worcester, and Joane, the wife of James Hellions, of Westhide, county Hereford." [p. 63] He then goes on to quote what he claims is an abstract of a title deed from the time
of Queen Elizabeth [p. 64]:

"The said Richard Brace by Margarett Devereux his wife hadd issue two daughters, Margarett Brace, wife to Robert Bromwiche, of Bromsborough, and Elizabeth Brace, married to John Unett. And James Helyon, by Joane Devereux his wife had issue two daughters,
Margaret Helion, wife of John Muchgrose of Powick, and Agnes, married to William Monington, and the heire female of Muchgrose was married to Buck."

The two daughters of Richard and Margaret Brace are well-documented by Chancery records and the visitations, but I have not found any direct confirmation of Joan Devereux or her marriage or her two daughters. However, a very interesting additional not
mentioned by Robinson detail comes from another source, which apparently gives Margaret (Devereux) Brace a second marriage to a certain Miles Water(s) of Clifford:

In a dispute over the succession to the manor of Cressage (in Shropshire) which occurred in 1439, Eyton lists one of the false claimants as: "Margaret, daughter of Sir William Devereux, and wife of Miles Waters, Senior, of Clifford, derived from Joan,
sister of some Gilbert de Lacy, who married Maud de Kingly. This Joan, Margaret said, married **** Glodeshull, and had a daughter, Elizabeth, wife of Sir William Devereux, and mother of the Claimant, who made her two nieces parties to the suit." Eyton'
s source for this is "Blakeway's MSS", and Eyton states that Blakeway's authority is not given. [Account of Cressage, in Robert William Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 6 (1858): 308-317, at p. 315]

Although I do not find Margaret Waters mentioned as the widow of Richard Brace in these secondary sources, it is difficult to interpret it any other way, and what contemporary evidence I have found seems to support that scenario. The two nieces who were
parties to the suit would appear to be Margaret (Helyon) Muchgrose and Agnes (Helyon) Monington. The following gives a simple outline of what we get if we put this all together:

Children of William Devereus and Elizabeth de Clodeshale:
Margaret, m. Richard Brace, said to have married (2) Miles Waters of Clifford. By Richard Brace she had:
* Margaret Brace, will dated 29 September 1488, m. (1) Robert Bromwich, m. (2) Roger Monington of Castle Frome.
* Elizabeth Brace, living 2 May 1472, m. John Ewnet/Unett, of Ledbury and Castle Frome, co. Hereford.
Joan m. James Helyon of Westhide, co. Hereford, leaving issue two daughters and coheirs:
* Margaret Helyon, m. John Muchgrose of Powick. Their heir married into the Bucke family.
* Agnes, m. William Monington

Some support for this comes from the fact that in 1431, Miles Water was holding land in the manor of Wodecote, co. Worcester for the service of 1/8 of a knight's fee, and Miles Water along with John Mucheg(r)os was holding the manor of Castle Frome, co.
Hereford, which had previously been held by William Devereux. [Feudal Aids, 2: 421; 5: 330] However, the strongest circumstantial evidence comes from a 1511 dispute over the possession of the advowson of Castle Frome. The investigation found that the
advowson was then jointly owned by Thomas Bromwich and Rowland Unett, and by Richard Monington of Westhide and William Buck (jure uxoris), with the right to present alternating between Bromwich and Buck one turn and then Monington and Buck the next turn,
and the dispute centered on who had last presented to the church. Looking through previous bishp's registers, they found that on 27 April 1425, Richard Homme had been instituted as rector at the presentation of John Muchegros and William Monyngtone,
while at the same time Miles Water had presented Richard Carpenter, apparently unsuccessfully. Then, on 12 February 1456, Thomas Morton was instituted on the presentation of Roger Monyngtone and John Unette. Thus, it was the turn of Richard Monington
and William Buck to make the presentation [Arthur Thomas Bannister, ed., The Register of Richard Mayew, Bishop of Hereford (1504-1516) (Hereford, 1919), 114-120]. Recall that Roger Monington was the second husband of Margaret Brace, therefore in the
Brace-Bromwich-Unett branceh, so it was the turn of the Helyon branch to make the presentation. Prior to this, Thomas Aston had presented to the church.

Since the younger Richard de Clodeshale did not died until 1428, and Margaret's husband and her nieces' husbands were already dealing with the advowson in 1425, it seems nonsensical to try and make Margaret a daughter of the younger Richard de Clodeshale.
So, since the 1472 Close Roll is almost certainly incorrect and has to be emended somehow, the most natural correction is that a generation was accidently omitted, in agreement with most of the other sources.

Of course, I would still like to see better evidence for Margaret's second marriage to Miles Water(s), and for Joan Helyon and her children.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 3:11:51 AM UTC-5, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Also can anyone tell me where I can find these docs?
- De Banco R. 20 Hen. VII, m. 397 (Kings Bench, right?)

No, Common Pleas (CP40).

In general, the quarterly term should also be cited in order to make the reference complete, but the person who wrote the VCH account of Woodcote didn't bother with that.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H7/CP40no972/aCP40no972fronts/IMG_0805.htm
(Easter term, 20 Henry VII [1505])

- Early Chan. Proc. bdle. 120, no. 54.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/ChP/C1no120/IMG_0195.htm

But don't waste time on this one. It is out of focus, and doesn't concern Woodcote anyway. I had already ordered a scan of this one years before AALT ever existed, and it is a shorter and less complete version of C1/287/18, a suit between the Braces
and Unett and Bromwich, concerning the manor and advowson of Doverdale, and a fourth part of the manor of Redmarley Adam. There was no good reason to cite this on an account of Woodcote manor.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The accounts of manors in VCH Worcestershire are often sloppy, and this one is a good example of that. False citations, misidentification of two women of the same name who were two generations apart, etc.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stewart - this looks very good, thank you. I have some ** queries and observations ** below - if you're able to respond I'd be very grateful.

Thanks, David

Walter de Clodshale, m. (1) Agnes [5E2, 1311-2]
Richard de Clodshale [24E3, 1350-1] m. Johanna, widow of Robert de Ribsford John de Clodshale [47E3, 1373-4] m. Beatrix, sister & h. of William Golofre [47E3, 1373-4]

** Are these marriage dates taken from Dugdale or are there primary sources? ** ** As an aside, note that John Clodeshale was said to be ‘deceased’ in a 1405 quitclaim by his son, Richard (DR10/369 - https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/bb821890-fe58-407e-80a8-5ec68aaca0f5) **

… as other records show, this is chronologically impossible, and Richard must have been a son of Walter's first wife Agnes.

** To further support this, in 1330 there is a complaint of assault in Birmingham against a group of men including Walter Clodeshale and his son John, so even allowing for John to be a young teenager (surely Walter didn't bring a toddler to an event like
this?!) Walter must have been 35+ years old when this happened (Cal. Pat. 1327-30, 555; 1332: Warws. Lay Subs. 70. (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp73-80#p47 , available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081071&
view=1up&seq=573) That, plus the marriage in 1311/12 to Agnes, makes c1290 a plausible guess for the date of Walter's birth.
Also, thinking also about who Walter’s father was, the following source (dated 1345, text below) says Walter was son of John Clodeshale, but the 1345 marriage settlement says Walter was son of Richard Clodeshale. What are we to make of this?
"I Master Roger has granted to Roger de Bisshopes[don' and Joan] the same manor and tenements and has rendered them to them in the court, to hold to Roger de Bisshopesdon' and Joan, of the chief lords for the lives of Roger de Bisshopesdon' and Joan.
And after the decease of Roger and Joan the same manor and tenements shall remain to Walter, son of Richard de Clodeshale, and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to
Walter, son of John de Clodeshale, and Richard de Clodeshale and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of Richard. And besides Master Roger granted for himself and his heirs that 1 messuage and 1 carucate of land - which Thomas atte Verne and Margaret, his wife,
held for their lives - of the inheritance of Master Roger in the vill of Elmeley Louet' on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Thomas and Margaret ought to revert to Master Roger and his heirs - after the decease of Thomas and
Margaret shall remain to Roger de Bisshopesdon' and Joan, to hold together with the aforesaid manor and tenements of the chief lords for the lives of Roger de Bisshopesdon' and Joan. And after the decease of Roger and Joan the same tenements shall remain
to Walter, son of Richard, and Alice, and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Roger de Bisshopesdon". (CP 25/1/260/21, number 31 available at http://www.
medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_260_21.shtml#31) **

So, Joan de Lacy was married to her first husband Robert de Ribsford/Ribbesford in Fall 1345, and died between the Easter and Michaelmas terms in 1354, at which time she was married to Richard de Clodeshale. These record also identify Joan's parents

and her maternal grandfather.
** can you pls give sources and links if possible? **

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for her

third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].
** I can’t find this source online – do you have a link to an online translation (not the AALT image, which I cannot read)?
Also, to support the idea of a third wife, “Richd Clodeshalle and Alice, his wife” are stated to be patrons of Badgerchapel in 1368 (source: p69, ‘Registrum Ludowici de Charltone, Episcopi Herefordensis, A.D. MCCCLXI-MCCCLXX’, available at https:/
/www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/606502-redirect#page=77&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=clodeshale) **

… the obvious conclusion would be Margaret Brace was a [daughter of William Devereux and Elizabeth,] daughter of Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife.

** In a 1420 case featuring Elizabeth Devereux vs. Joan Homes re. rents in Hayton, Shropshire, Joan H. argues that William Devereux had a first wife, Matilda [Isabel de la Haye], by whom he had a daughter, Margaret. For her part, Eliz. Devereux argues
that she is due the rents because her then husband, William Devereux, was seised of them only after he and Elizabeth were married. Interestingly it’s not reported that Elizabeth *denies* the existence or parentage of this said Margaret, or that she
immediately pipes up and says 'hold on, Margaret is my daughter by William!" Does this mean that William Devereux had two daughters named Margaret – the first by Isabel de la Haye, the second by Elizabeth Clodeshale? (Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637,
rot. 318d) It doesn’t help also there is no mention of any daughter Margaret in Wm. Devereux’s will of 1385. --- I’m still not 100% convinced by the argument that Margaret brace is Elizabeth's daughter, but I understand your logic **

Since the younger Richard de Clodeshale did not died until 1428

** Richard’s will was apparently dated 7 May 1428 and proved in August the same year – I can’t find this online, have you seen it or do you know where it can be found? **

** I’m wondering also if Richard had a first wife before Isabel Edgbaston. His daughter, Elizabeth, married Robert Arden in 1426 so must have been too young (about 10 years old) to be the daughter of Richard and Isabel who married 1415/6 (dates taken
from the Phillimore Middlemore book, citing Dugdale, who gives no authority for these dates so they could be wrong). Also if Richard had been born soon after his father John married Beatrice Golofre in 1373/4, then he was about 42 years old when he
married Isabel Edgbaston – it seems reasonable that he might have been married previously, no? **

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 6:16:39 AM UTC-5, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Stewart - this looks very good, thank you. I have some ** queries and observations ** below - if you're able to respond I'd be very grateful.

Thanks, David

Walter de Clodshale, m. (1) Agnes [5E2, 1311-2]
Richard de Clodshale [24E3, 1350-1] m. Johanna, widow of Robert de Ribsford
John de Clodshale [47E3, 1373-4] m. Beatrix, sister & h. of William Golofre [47E3, 1373-4]

** Are these marriage dates taken from Dugdale or are there primary sources? **

These dates (NOT marriage dates) are taken directly from Dugdale. All I have added are the conversions for regnal years to AD dates. It should never be assumed that dates given in such secondary sources are marriage dates. They are usually dates in
which the couple appeared in the records as husband and wife. Attempts to turn such dates into marriage dates have often resulted in distorted chronology.


. . .

So, Joan de Lacy was married to her first husband Robert de Ribsford/Ribbesford in Fall 1345, and died between the Easter and Michaelmas terms in 1354, at which time she was married to Richard de Clodeshale. These record also identify Joan's parents

and her maternal grandfather.

** can you pls give sources and links if possible? **

The sources were already given in my posting.

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for

her third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].

** I can’t find this source online – do you have a link to an online translation (not the AALT image, which I cannot read)?

I don't know of any translation.

. . .

… the obvious conclusion would be Margaret Brace was a [daughter of William Devereux and Elizabeth,] daughter of Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife.

** In a 1420 case featuring Elizabeth Devereux vs. Joan Homes re. rents in Hayton, Shropshire, Joan H. argues that William Devereux had a first wife, Matilda [Isabel de la Haye], by whom he had a daughter, Margaret. For her part, Eliz. Devereux argues

that she is due the rents because her then husband, William Devereux, was seised of them only after he and Elizabeth were married. Interestingly it’s not reported that Elizabeth *denies* the existence or parentage of this said Margaret, or that she
immediately pipes up and says 'hold on, Margaret is my daughter by William!" Does this mean that William Devereux had two daughters named Margaret – the first by Isabel de la Haye, the second by Elizabeth Clodeshale? (Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637,
rot. 318d) It doesn’t help also there is no mention of any daughter Margaret in Wm. Devereux’s will of 1385. --- I’m still not 100% convinced by the argument that Margaret brace is Elizabeth's daughter, but I understand your logic **

The daughter of William Deveros and Matilda mentioned in the CP40/637 record is named as Margery, not Margaret. As for the parentage of Margaret, wife of Richard Brace, other than the 1472 Close Roll, which I have shown cannot be right, every other
source which states her parentage makes her a daughter of William and Elizabeth. The evidence may not be ideal, but it is difficult to another scenario which would fit the known evidence.

Since the younger Richard de Clodeshale did not died until 1428

** Richard’s will was apparently dated 7 May 1428 and proved in August the same year – I can’t find this online, have you seen it or do you know where it can be found? **

Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC 10 Luffenam).

** I’m wondering also if Richard had a first wife before Isabel Edgbaston. His daughter, Elizabeth, married Robert Arden in 1426 so must have been too young (about 10 years old) to be the daughter of Richard and Isabel who married 1415/6 (dates taken

from the Phillimore Middlemore book, citing Dugdale, who gives no authority for these dates so they could be wrong). Also if Richard had been born soon after his father John married Beatrice Golofre in 1373/4, then he was about 42 years old when he
married Isabel Edgbaston – it seems reasonable that he might have been married previously, no? **

As noted above, these are not marriage dates.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 3:37:21 PM UTC-4, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

I have been looking at the Clodesdales during the last few days, and I believe that I have discovered enough of the chronology to nail down the parentage of both Elizabdeth Clodesdale/Devereux/Aston and Margaret, wife of Richard Brace. Dugdales History

of Warwickshire, 2: 884 gives the following genealogical table, also giving dates (in year of the reign format) to some of them showing when they were known to be alive (to which I have added a conversion to the usual dates)

Walter de Clodshale, m. (1) Agnes [5E2, 1311-2], m. (2) Alice, dau. & h. of Roger de Bishopesden [19E3, 1345-6]
|
Richard de Clodshale [24E3, 1350-1] m. Johanna, widow of Robert de Ribsford |
John de Clodshale [47E3, 1373-4] m. Beatrix, sister & h. of William Golofre [47E3, 1373-4]
|
Richard de Clodshale [3H5, 1415-6] m. Isabella, dau. & h. of Richard de Edgbaston, widow of Thomas Midlemore
|
Elizabeth (dau. & heir) m. Robert Ardern of Park Hall [4H6, 1425-6]

The Visitation of the County of Warwick in the year 1619 (Harleian Soc. 12, 1877): 74 has a pedigree of Golofre and Clodishall immediately following the Arden/Ardren pedigree, which, in addition to giving the ancestry of Beatrix Golofre for four

generations, gives the same line of descent for the Clodeshales, except that Walter's first wife Agnes is not mentioned, and the wives of the two Richard de Clodeshales are not named. Both this visitation and Dugdale's pedigree on p. 82 shown above make
Alice the mother of the first Richard, but as other records show, this is chronologically impossible, and Richard must have been a son of Walter's first wife Agnes.

In the history of Clodeshale's Chantry in Birmingham appearing in Dugdale's History of Warwickshire, 2: 908-9, citing partly the Patent Rolls and partly a manuscript in the possession of "S.A." (whoever that was), in 4 Edward III, Walter de Clodshale

of Saltley gave 4 messuages, 20 acres of land, and 18d. of rent, all in the town of Birmingham, for the maintenance of one priest to celebrate divine service there, for the souls of the said Walter and Agnes his wife, their ancestors, and all the
faithful deceased. Then, in 21 Edward III, Richard de Clodshale (son and heir of the same Walter) gave 5 messuages, ten acres of land, and 10s. yearly rent for another priest to celebrate divine service at the same altar, for the good estate of the said
Richard and Alice his wife during their lives, and for their souls after their departure, and for the sould of his father and mother and of Fouk de Bermingham and Joan his wife, and all the faithful deceased. Clearly, Richard de Clodeshale was born long
before the marriage settlement of Walter de Clodeshale and Alice de Bishopesden. These records (and others) also show that before marrying Joan/Johanna, Richard had a first wife named Alice. A record cited below will show that he also apparently had a
third wife, also named Alice.

Hoever, the most important problem for the specific questions pursued in this thread is the chronology of the marriage of Richard's second wife Joan. Important information about this, and also about her parentage, appears in two entries fro the rolls

of the Common Pleas Court ("De Banco") which were abstracted in Collections for a History of Staffordshire (William Salt Soc., vol. 12), as follows (with citations to the original images at AALT added by me)

Coll. Hist. Staff. 12 (1891): 45, from Michaelmas term, 19 E. III [1345] [CP40/344, m. 515 (AALT image 1043)].
Salop. Robert de Ribbesford, and Joan, his wife, and Elizabeth de Lacy, sued Roger de Asteleyo.and Margaret, his wife, and John, son of the said Eoger, for a messuage, and a carucate of land, etc., in Huggeleye, which Walter de Beysyn had given to John

de Lacy, and Margaret, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and which after the death of John and Margaret, and of Gilbert, their son and heir, should descend to the said Joan and Elizabeth, as sisters and heirs of the said Gilbert. The defendants
appeared and took exception to the writ because Elizabeth, subsequent to the date of the writ, viz., 20 Sept., 18 E. Ill, had been married to one Walter de Baskerville, and she was now "cooperta" by him. As the plaintiffs could not deny this, the suit
was dismissed, m. 515.

Coll. Hist. Staff. 12 (1891): 126, from Easter term, 28E3 [1354] [CP40/377, m. 120d (AALT image 4916)]
Salop. Richard de Clodeshale, and Joan his wife, and John de Delves, and Elizabeth his wife sued Roger de Astele, and John his son for a messuage, 100 acres of land, eight acres of meadow, six acres of pasture, twenty acres of wood, and 30s. of rent in

Huggeley, which Walter Beysin had given to John Lacy in frank marriage with Margaret his daughter, and which after the death of the said John and Margaret, and of Gilbert their son, should descend to the said Joan and Elizabeth as sisters and heirs of
Gilbert. Roger and Joan called to warranty William, son and heir of William de Farnecote, who was to be summoned for the Quindene of St. Michael. A postscript states that on that day the parties appeared when it was testified that Joan was dead, and the
suit was dismissed sine die. m. 120, dorso.

So, Joan de Lacy was married to her first husband Robert de Ribsford/Ribbesford in Fall 1345, and died between the Easter and Michaelmas terms in 1354, at which time she was married to Richard de Clodeshale. These record also identify Joan's parents

and her maternal grandfather. In my somewhat random page-by-page searches of the Common Pleas rolls which I have conducted over the last several years, searching for information on the Brace and Doverdale families, I have run across several references to
the Clodeshale family, including a few of definite interest here.

In Easter and Trinity terms, 25 Edward III [1351], Richard Clodeshale and his wife Joan and others were accused raids against lands of Thomas de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, at Lyndone [CP40/365, m. 47d (AALT image 2533), CP40/366, m. 44 (AALT image

2906)]. Richard also appears with his wife Joan in another record (concerning the manor of Pebmore) for Trinity term, 25 Edward III [1351] [CP40/366, m. 49 (AALT image 2915)]. So, Richard de Clodeshale married his wife Joan de Lacy (widow of Robert de
Ribbesford) between Fall 1345 and Spring 1351, and Joan died in 1354.

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for her

third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].

So Elizabeth de Clodeshale was married to William de Devereux before early 1374, and Richard de Clodehale was deceased by that time, leaving a widow Alice who was suing for her third part. Virtually all sources which say anything about the mother of

Elizabeth make her a mamber of the Lacy family, and indeed, that is the best way to explain how she brought the manor of Castle Frome to her two husbands. Thus, it seems virtually certain that this Elizabeth Clodeshale was a daughter of Richard de
Clodeshale and Joan de Lacy.

As for Margaret, wife of Richard Brace, as we have already seen, visitations and other hard-to-follow sources make her a daughter of William de Devereux and Elizabeth de Clodeshale, while the 1472 Close Roll contradicts this by making Margaret a

daughter of a Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife. However, it would be extraordinarily improbable that Margaret was a sister of Elizabeth, as we would then have Margaret born in 1354 or before, therefore older than John Brace, father of her future
husband Richard Brace, and mother of at least one daughter who lived until 1488. A Devil's Advocate could argue that this is within the realm of possibility, but only by stretching everything to its limit. Arguing that Margaret was a daughter of the
younger Richard de Clodeshale by a previously unknown additional wife Joan, and thus a great-granddaughter of Richard and Joan, would compress the chronology in the other direction, in addition to requiring an additional wife for the younger Richard and
not fitting well with information about the advowson of Castle Frome given below. Since the 1472 Close Roll appears to be incorrect, he obvious conclusion would be that it accidentally omitted a generation (or the editor missed it while editing), and
that Margaret Brace was a [daughter of William Devereux and Elizabeth,] daughter of Richard de Clodeshale and Joan his wife.

Additional evidence for this comes from the descent of the advowson of Castle Frome, which does not fit well with Margaret Brace being a daughter of the younger Richard Clodeshale. A skeleton genealogy is supplied by a couple of nineteenth century

secondary sources, based on sources that are difficult to trace back. However, this skeleton genealogy does fit well with what evidence I could find regarding the possession of the manors of Woodcote and Castle Frome and the advowson of Castle Frome.

One of these secondary sources is Charles J. Robinson, "A History of the Castles of Herefordshire and their Lords" (London & Hereford, 1869). According to the author, Robinson's account of the manor of Castle Frome [Robinson, pp. 62-4] is "chiefly

derived" from a series of title deeds in the possession of Rev. William Poole, then the owner of the manor. Robinson states that at the death of Elizabeth (wife of William Devereux and Thomas Aston), Castle Frome was "divided between the two daughters of
her first husband, viz., Margafret, wife of Richard Brace of Wiche, County Worcester, and Joane, the wife of James Hellions, of Westhide, county Hereford." [p. 63] He then goes on to quote what he claims is an abstract of a title deed from the time of
Queen Elizabeth [p. 64]:

"The said Richard Brace by Margarett Devereux his wife hadd issue two daughters, Margarett Brace, wife to Robert Bromwiche, of Bromsborough, and Elizabeth Brace, married to John Unett. And James Helyon, by Joane Devereux his wife had issue two

daughters, Margaret Helion, wife of John Muchgrose of Powick, and Agnes, married to William Monington, and the heire female of Muchgrose was married to Buck."

The two daughters of Richard and Margaret Brace are well-documented by Chancery records and the visitations, but I have not found any direct confirmation of Joan Devereux or her marriage or her two daughters. However, a very interesting additional not

mentioned by Robinson detail comes from another source, which apparently gives Margaret (Devereux) Brace a second marriage to a certain Miles Water(s) of Clifford:

In a dispute over the succession to the manor of Cressage (in Shropshire) which occurred in 1439, Eyton lists one of the false claimants as: "Margaret, daughter of Sir William Devereux, and wife of Miles Waters, Senior, of Clifford, derived from Joan,

sister of some Gilbert de Lacy, who married Maud de Kingly. This Joan, Margaret said, married **** Glodeshull, and had a daughter, Elizabeth, wife of Sir William Devereux, and mother of the Claimant, who made her two nieces parties to the suit." Eyton's
source for this is "Blakeway's MSS", and Eyton states that Blakeway's authority is not given. [Account of Cressage, in Robert William Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 6 (1858): 308-317, at p. 315]

Although I do not find Margaret Waters mentioned as the widow of Richard Brace in these secondary sources, it is difficult to interpret it any other way, and what contemporary evidence I have found seems to support that scenario. The two nieces who

were parties to the suit would appear to be Margaret (Helyon) Muchgrose and Agnes (Helyon) Monington. The following gives a simple outline of what we get if we put this all together:

Children of William Devereus and Elizabeth de Clodeshale:
Margaret, m. Richard Brace, said to have married (2) Miles Waters of Clifford. By Richard Brace she had:
* Margaret Brace, will dated 29 September 1488, m. (1) Robert Bromwich, m. (2) Roger Monington of Castle Frome.
* Elizabeth Brace, living 2 May 1472, m. John Ewnet/Unett, of Ledbury and Castle Frome, co. Hereford.
Joan m. James Helyon of Westhide, co. Hereford, leaving issue two daughters and coheirs:
* Margaret Helyon, m. John Muchgrose of Powick. Their heir married into the Bucke family.
* Agnes, m. William Monington

Some support for this comes from the fact that in 1431, Miles Water was holding land in the manor of Wodecote, co. Worcester for the service of 1/8 of a knight's fee, and Miles Water along with John Mucheg(r)os was holding the manor of Castle Frome, co.

Hereford, which had previously been held by William Devereux. [Feudal Aids, 2: 421; 5: 330] However, the strongest circumstantial evidence comes from a 1511 dispute over the possession of the advowson of Castle Frome. The investigation found that the
advowson was then jointly owned by Thomas Bromwich and Rowland Unett, and by Richard Monington of Westhide and William Buck (jure uxoris), with the right to present alternating between Bromwich and Buck one turn and then Monington and Buck the next turn,
and the dispute centered on who had last presented to the church. Looking through previous bishp's registers, they found that on 27 April 1425, Richard Homme had been instituted as rector at the presentation of John Muchegros and William Monyngtone,
while at the same time Miles Water had presented Richard Carpenter, apparently unsuccessfully. Then, on 12 February 1456, Thomas Morton was instituted on the presentation of Roger Monyngtone and John Unette. Thus, it was the turn of Richard Monington and
William Buck to make the presentation [Arthur Thomas Bannister, ed., The Register of Richard Mayew, Bishop of Hereford (1504-1516) (Hereford, 1919), 114-120]. Recall that Roger Monington was the second husband of Margaret Brace, therefore in the Brace-
Bromwich-Unett branceh, so it was the turn of the Helyon branch to make the presentation. Prior to this, Thomas Aston had presented to the church.

Since the younger Richard de Clodeshale did not died until 1428, and Margaret's husband and her nieces' husbands were already dealing with the advowson in 1425, it seems nonsensical to try and make Margaret a daughter of the younger Richard de

Clodeshale. So, since the 1472 Close Roll is almost certainly incorrect and has to be emended somehow, the most natural correction is that a generation was accidently omitted, in agreement with most of the other sources.

Of course, I would still like to see better evidence for Margaret's second marriage to Miles Water(s), and for Joan Helyon and her children.

Stewart, this is a great write-up; thank you
--Joe C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 2:37:21 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for her

third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].

Just discovered today during a page-by-page search of the Common Pleas, the follow-up to the above in Easter term, 1374:

CP40/454, m. 324d (AALT image 1560), with many more details than the brief account for Hilary term. This gives solid contemporary documentation that the Alice who was defendant in this case was in fact a later wife of the same Richard de Clodeshale who
had previously been married to Joan, and also gives proof that the plaintiff Elizabeth, wife of William Deveros, was in fact a daughter of Richard and Joan.

I have not yet examined this record in great detail. When I come across more detailed accounts like this, I prefer to work slowly, in order to make sure that I get the Latin right. However, this account ends by stating that a jury will be summoned for
Trinity term, so there is probably still more, but the only way I know to find it is to do a page-by-page search of the Trinity term. (In this case, not quite as bad as it sounds, since the county is given in the margin, and the only ones I check more
carefully are the ones from Worcestershire. I know that I will miss some cases of interest doing it this way, but if somebody knows a better way to search these records when you are mainly interested in one county, please let me know.)

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks Stewart, that's fantastic. I look forward to hearing what the text(s) say in due course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 7:31:54 AM UTC+1, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks Stewart, that's fantastic. I look forward to hearing what the text(s) say in due course.

As far as it goes, Complete Peerage Vol IV page 306 agrees with Stewart's construction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 11:18:32 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 2:37:21 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

Richard apparently married a third wife Alice _____, and he was deceased by Hilary term 47-8 Edward III [1374], when Alice, who had been the wife of Richard de Clodeshale [apparently this Richard] sued William de Deveros and Elizabeth his wife for

her third part of the manors of Stockton and Wodecote [CP40/453, m. 315d (AALT image 1619)].

Just discovered today during a page-by-page search of the Common Pleas, the follow-up to the above in Easter term, 1374:

CP40/454, m. 324d (AALT image 1560), with many more details than the brief account for Hilary term. This gives solid contemporary documentation that the Alice who was defendant in this case was in fact a later wife of the same Richard de Clodeshale who

had previously been married to Joan, and also gives proof that the plaintiff Elizabeth, wife of William Deveros, was in fact a daughter of Richard and Joan.

I have not yet examined this record in great detail. When I come across more detailed accounts like this, I prefer to work slowly, in order to make sure that I get the Latin right. However, this account ends by stating that a jury will be summoned for

Trinity term, so there is probably still more, but the only way I know to find it is to do a page-by-page search of the Trinity term. (In this case, not quite as bad as it sounds, since the county is given in the margin, and the only ones I check more
carefully are the ones from Worcestershire. I know that I will miss some cases of interest doing it this way, but if somebody knows a better way to search these records when you are mainly interested in one county, please let me know.)

I see that I accidently switched to words "plaintiff" and "defendant" above. Alice was the plaintiff, and William and Elizabeth were the defendants. A basic abstract of the record is as follows:

Alice, who was the wife of Richard de Clodeshale, demands (through her attorney) against William Deveros, knight, and Elizabeth his wife, the third part of the manors of Stotton' [presumably Stockton] and Wodecote with appurtenances, as her dower from
the endowmnet of the aforesaid Richard, formerly her husband, etc.
William and Elizabeth (through their attorney) say that Alice should not have her dower in this portion, because a certain Thomas Sherrene was seised of the aforesaid manors with appurtenences in his demesne as of fee, and he gave the aforesaid manors
with appurtenences to the aforesaid Richard de Clodeshale and to a certain Joan then his (Richard's) wife and to the heirs of their bodies, among whom issued the aforesaid Elizabeth who responds as tenant, etc. And the aforesaid Joan died, after whose
death the aforesaid Richard took the aforesaid Alice in marriage, and the same Richard died, after whose death the aforesaid Elizabeth entered into the aforesaid manors as daughter and heir of the aforesaid Richard and Joan, by virtue of the aforesaid
entail, and in that manner she and the aforesaid William have been seised of the aforesaid manors, whence they ask for judgement whether Alice should have dower in this portion as the wife of Richard, etc.
And Alice says that she should not be ecluded from having her dower in this portion, because the aforesaid Richard was seised of the aforesaid manors with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee simple.
And William and Elizabeth say that Richard had the manors for his life by virtue of the aforesaid entail, and not in fee simple as Alice alleges.
And the sheriff is ordered to summon a jury for the octave of Trinity term.

So, the genealogical information itself is pretty clear. It is hard to say what information is available in the Trinity term record. Following a Common Pleas case from one term to another can be pretty frustrating sometimes. It takes me several hours
to do a page-by-page search for a single quarterly term during this time period, when I am only checking the records that indicate Worcestershire in the margin (usually "Wygorn" and sometimes just "Wyg"). For example, Easter 1374 had about 450 membranes,
most of them recorded on both the front and back, a total of 1800+ images. For some cases, the records just run out, and you never find out how it ended. Usually, when a continuation is indicated, as above, a page-by-page search of the indicated term (
in this case, Trinity term, 1374) will reveal some additional record of the case, but it might just be a record of a continuance, in which case you just have to start the process over in another term if you want to follow a case further. Browsing the
Common Pleas rolls is a hit-or-miss project which is usually "miss" but sometimes uncovers a gem.

This record brings up one interesting question. The is no reason to doubt Elizabeth's claim that she was a daughter of Richard and Joan, nut her claim that she was daughter AND HEIR of Richard and Joan, if true, would mean that Richard's son John de
Clodeshale was by one of Richard's other wives. It is notable that John de Clodeshale does not appear much in the records, while the two Richards, his father and son, appear quite a bit. Maybe he died not that long after his father. This leads me to
another random theory, which may or may not be correct. The records of the Clodeshale Chantry abstracted in Dugdale's Warwickshire history show a Roger Burgilon and Beatrix his wife presenting to the chantry in the 1380's. Beatrix was the name of the
wife of John de Clodehale. Could it be that John's widow married Roger Burgilon? This is an attractive theory, which, if true, would help quite a bit with the chronology of the later generations. Of course, at the moment, it is just a guess which
demands checking. It could very well be wrong, but there ought to be some explanation of why Roger Burgilon and his wife were presenting to the chantry.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Formidable work, thanks Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I noticed that the Wikipedia article on William Devereux states that Elizabeth's heiresses were by her two daughters by her second husband Thomas Aston, Margaret and Joan, no source given. Although this is contradicted by two sixteenth century pedigrees
making Margaret a daughter of William, this is not impossible, but I know of no pre-2000 source which makes this claim. Perhaps Margaret was William's daughter and Joan (as yet unverified in contemporary records) was a daughter of the second marriage to
Thomas Aston.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-5, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Can we also consider what the descent of Woodcote manor means for all this?

My understanding is that Woodcote was gifted to Walter Clodeshale and his bride Alice Bishopsden by her father, Roger Bishopsden, in 1345.

The next record I have for it is in 1410 when Elizabeth Aston (née Clodeshale) sells Woodcote to Margaret Brace.

If Elizabeth was Walter’s daughter, did she inherit Woodcote from him? I would have thought it would have gone to Walter’s male heris, of whom he had at least two: Richard (gt. grandfather of Eliz. Arden) and also John who, along with Walter and

Richard and others, is accused of assault in 1330 (Calendar of the patent rolls 1327-1330 Edward III v.1., available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031081071&view=1up&seq=573)

Of course Woodcote wasn’t the only property owned by Walter. He also held Saltley Manor, which according to the following record passed down to Rich. Clodes m. Isabel Edgbaston (Richard is described as Richard Clodeshale of Saltley in this record:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9334389).

So maybe the sons got Saltley and other estates and Woodcote passed to Elizabeth? What do you think?

Do you have any suggestions on where I could look for more detailed records about the history of Woodcote? I’m new to this and I’m not really sure where to look for good source info yet.

Some of this is made clearer if you look carefully at the entailment given by the fine granting the manor of Woodcote to the Clodeshales [CP 25/1/260/21/31 (AALT image 0183)]. In this fine, on 1 July 1345, the manor of Woodcote (along with other
property) was settled on Roger de Bisshopesdon and Joan his wife for their lives, and then the fine stated:

And after the deaths of Roger and Joan themselves, the same manor and tenements with appurtenances shall remain entirely to Walter, son of Richard de Clodeshale, and to Alice his wife, and to the heirs of the body begotten of Walter and Alice themselves,
to hold of the chief lords of these fees, for the service which pertains to these manors and tenements, forever. And if it should happen that the said Walter and Alice die without heirs of their body, then after the deaths of Walter and Alice themselves,
the same manor and tenements with appurtenances shall remain entirely to Walter, son of John de Clodeshale, and to Richard de Clodeshale and Alice his wife, and to the heirs of Richard himself, to hold of the chief lords of these fees, for the services
which pertain to these manors and tenements, forever. (This is my own translation of the entailment part of the fine, taken directly from the image of the fine itself, a bit wordier than the slightly abbreviated abstract on the "SOME NOTES ON MEDIEVAL
ENGLISH GENEALOGY" website, but essentially the same.)

So, the entailment states that after the death of Roger and his wife Joan, the manor of Woodcote goes to Walter de Clodeshale (son of Richard) and his wife Alice, and their children (and descendants), but if they have no surviving children (or
descendants), then it goes first to Walter de Clodeshale (son of John) and Richard de Clodeshale and his wife Alice (for their lives) and then to the heirs of Richard de Clodeshale. Note that this is different from the entailment in the second part of
the fine, in which the property reverts to the heirs of Roger de Bisshopesdon if Walter and Alice fail to have issue. So, the first part of the fine is essentially a conveyance of the manor of Woodcote from Roger de Bisshopesdon to the Clodeshale family
(but with the provision that it goes to Walter and Alice's descendants if they have any), while the second part of the fine is a conveyance to Alice and her husband, but reverting to Roger's family if Alice dies without issue by Walter.

The most important thing is to identify the Clodeshales who appear in this fine. First, and most obviously, The Richard Clodeshale who was the father of Elizabeth (wife of William Devereux and Thomas Aston) was clearly not a son (or descendant) of the
marriage of Walter de Clodeshale and Alice de Bisshopesdon. In fact, since Woodcote was later held by his children and descendants, Elizabeth's father was almost certainly the Richard de Clodeshale (husband of another Alice) who appears in the above
fine, and whose heirs were the residual heirs if the above fine. I looked briefly at the history of the Bisshopesden family, and this Richard de Clodeshale appears to have been in roughly the same generation as Roger de Bisshopesdon. Other records show
that Richard was the son of a Walter de Clodeshale, and there are two Walter de Clodeshales appearing in this fine, Walter son of Richard and husband of Alice, and the Walter son of John who was to hold Woodcote for life with Richard and Alice if Walter
son of Richard and his wife Alice died without heirs. Was Richard's father one of these two Walter de Clodeshales who appear in the fine, or another Walter entirely? Richard's father Walter de Clodeshale was still alive on or shortly before 12 April
1345, since he presented William atte Cause to the chantry of St. Mary, Birmingham, instituted as incumbent on that date [Dugdale's Hist. of Warw., 2: 909], so it is likely that Walter was still living on 1 July 1345, the date of the fine, so a third
Walter seems less likely than the alternative that Richard's father was one of the Walters appearing in the fine.

Even though it has generally been assumed that Richard was a son of Walter and Alice, based largely on a fifthteenth century source giving that descent, plus the very sloppy account of Woodcote manor in VCH, we have seen that this is not true, so the
identification of the two Walters in this fine bears reexamination. It could be that Walter (father of Richard) was marrying a woman a couple of generations younger than he was, but it seems more likely to me that there was only one Richard de
Clodeshale mentioned in this fine, and that his son Walter was a young man marrying for the first time to his wife Alice. It is known that Richard and his (apparently younger) brother John were already adults on 12 February 1330, when they, their father
Walter de Clodeshale, and a certain Roger de Clodeshale were among defendants accused of assaulting Geoffrey de Blaston at Birmingham [CPR Edward III, 1: 555]. So, Richard was probably old enough to be the father of a young man marrying in 1345. This
interpretation also avoids the possibility that there were two Richard de Clodeshales appearing in the fine, along with the ambiguity that would cause. Also, this would then mean that Richard's father was probably the Walter son of John appearing in the
fine, which also fits well with the other records, since a John de Clodeshale appears occasionally in the late 1200's and early 1300's, while I have not seen an earlier Richard de Clodehale who could conveniently be identified as Richard's grandfather.

So, my interpretation of this fine (or at least the Woodcote part of it) is that Roger de Bisshopesdon was conveying the manor of Woodcote to the Clodeshales permanently, but with the provision that if Walter (Jr.) and Alice had children, then Woodcote
would pass to that branch of the Clodeshale family. If Walter and Alice died without heirs (which is what happened), then the manor was to pass jointly to Walter Jr.'s grandfather Walter Sr. (son of John) and his parents Richard and Alice [the "
grandfather" relation being known only from other records], and then after their deaths to Richard's heirs, whoever they might be. (When Richard died, between 1369 and 1374, his heir appears to have been his son John, still alive in 1377, a younger
brother of the deceased Walter Jr.) The situation for the descent of Woodcote after this is still complicated, but it concerned individuals who were heirs of Richard, so it would appear that the conditions of this fine were being met as closely as one
might expect.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Stewart

Again, amazing work - just goes to show what a difference getting into the original manuscripts makes.

I do agree that it makes sense that the Walter who marries Alice in 1345 would be a younger man, but you say there are two Walter's mentioned in the fine - the Walter who marries Alice, and Walter son of Richard, whilst before that, in your translation,
you say "Walter, son of John de Clodeshale". Am I misunderstanding something here? It's John, right?

As for the identity of said John, could that not be Richard's brother, who is caught up in the 1330 assault? If Roger is their contemporary, it seems to me to make sense that Roger would specify that the manor would go to Richard and his brother, rather
than Richard and his father, Walter (if indeed that were the relationship)?

What do you think?

Thanks,
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 3:11:11 AM UTC-5, baytr...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Stewart

Again, amazing work - just goes to show what a difference getting into the original manuscripts makes.

I do agree that it makes sense that the Walter who marries Alice in 1345 would be a younger man, but you say there are two Walter's mentioned in the fine - the Walter who marries Alice, and Walter son of Richard, whilst before that, in your translation,

you say "Walter, son of John de Clodeshale". Am I misunderstanding something here? It's John, right?

As for the identity of said John, could that not be Richard's brother, who is caught up in the 1330 assault? If Roger is their contemporary, it seems to me to make sense that Roger would specify that the manor would go to Richard and his brother,

rather than Richard and his father, Walter (if indeed that were the relationship)?

What do you think?

When the same name appears in two or more different documents relevant to documenting a family, it is important to correctly determine whether or not they refer to the same person. In some cases, it might be reasonably obvious from context that they
refer to the same person (or to different individuals). In cases where it is not obvious, the question needs to be approached logically, with a willingness to accept the possibility that there is not sufficient evidence to decide. Even if you believe
that they were the same individual, it is important to allow for the possibility that they were different individuals until such time as the case has been made, and this can sometimes make the arguments difficult to follow. The previous discussion I
gave was possibly too disorganized, so I will give an outline that emphasizes the main points.

If we ignore the 1345 Bisshopesden-Clodeshale fine for the moment, there is only one Walter de Clodeshale during this century mentioned by the other sources of whom I am aware. His approximate chronology can be given by the fact that he had adult sons
by 1330, and was still living in early 1345 (therefore most likely still alive at the time of the fine later that year). For convenience, let us call him "Walter the Founder" (since he was apparently the first member of the family to be lord of a manor,
and the founder of his familiy's fortunes). On the other hand, the 1345 fine clearly mentions two different Walter de Clodeshales, namely Walter son of Richard de Clodeshale and husband of Alice (Walter#1 for short), and Walter son of John de Clodeshale
(Walter#2 for short). Logically, there are three possibilities. Either Walter the Founder was the same person as Walter#1, or he was the same person as Walter#2, or Walter the Founder does not appear in the fine at all, and was a different person from
both Walter #1 and Walter#2. This gives us three logical possibilities, and we need to carefully examine the evidence in each case to see if any of these can be ruled out. One observation which is relevant to all three possibilities is that what we can
determine of the chronology of Roger de Bisshopesden suggests that he was a generation or so younger that Walter the Founder, so Roger's daughter Alice was almost certainly much younger than Walter the Founder. In any case, Alice was certainly not an
ancestor of the later Clodeshales, and any secondary source which suggests that (i.e., most of them) must be treated with skepticism. Since the three possibilities are mutually exclusive, let us examine them separately.

Scenario #1: Walter the Founder was the same person as Walter#1. In this case, Alice would be a later wife of Walter the Founder, much younger than her husband by at least 30 years (and probably more). This is possible, but seems less likely than
marrying a person her own age. Also, Walter would then be the son of an earlier Richard de Clodeshale, and the main problem with that is that the only chronologically likely earlier Richard de Clodeshale I have found was a lawyer for the king who had no
obvious Warwickshire connections. However, he did apparently travel quite a bit on business for the king, so he might have been from the Birmingham area. If this scenario is true, then as you suggested, Walter#2 would most likely have been an
otherwise unknown son of the John son of Walter (the Founder) who appears in 1330 and 1332.

Scenario #2: Walter the Founder was the same person as Walter#2. In this case, Walter#1 would almost certainly be an otherwise unknown son of Walter the Founder's eventual heir Richard de Clodeshale. In addition to the chronological advantage of
having Alice's husband being near her own age, this would also give "John" as the name of the father of Walter the Founder, and there was a John de Clodeshale of Birmingham appearing in a number of records in the late 1200's and early 1300's who would
make a chronologically and geographically plausible father for Walter the Founder.

Scenario #3: Walter the Founder was the same person as neither Walter#1 nor Walter#2. If this case were true, then Walter#1 and Walter#2 would presumably be grandsons of Walter the Founder, sons of Richard and John respectively. Although I do not see
any evidence which would explicitly rule out this scenario, it seems much less likely than the other two scenarios, as it requires the existence of two otherwise unknown additional Walters.

There is an additional fact which I believe argues strongly for Scenario #2. In the entailment, after the death of Roger de Bisshopesden and his wife, the manor was to go to
1. Walter#1 (Walter son of Richard) and his wife Alice, and the heirs of their bodies; and in the absence of such heirs, to
2. Walter#2 (Walter son of John de Clodeshale) and Richard de Clodesdale and his wife Alice, and the heirs of Richard himself.

If Walter#2 were the father of Richard, then this entailment would make perfect sense, as if Walter#1 and Alice had no children, the manor (and other property) would pass along the "main line" of the Clodeshale family (i.e., whatever the "main line" was
after they died without heirs), a very straightforward entailment. On the other hand, if either Scenario #1 or Scenario #3 were true, if Walter#1 and Alice died without children, then the entailment would pass (apparently jointly) to his grandson Walter#
2 (named first!) and his son Richard and then to Richard's heirs (which in this scenario would apparently be to the exclusion of Walter#2's heirs). While this would not be impossible, it does look rather odd.

Thus, I believe that Scenario #2 is the most likely one, although we don't have the evidence to rule out either of the other two scenarios completely. Of course, the best way to settle the matter would be to find unambiguous proof for the identity of
Walter the Founder's father. Also, if we could get a better estimate of the birthdate of Richard de Clodeshale (son of Walter), then it might help to narrow the possibilities. Earlier dates of birth would favor Scenario #2, and later dates of birth
would lean against Scenario #2.

Dividing into mutually exclusive scenarios and examining them individually is not an ideal way to work toward a genealogical conclusion, but it is an important technique which is sometimes necessary in difficult cases.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)