On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 1:30:52 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> From Ightfield church:
> Here lyeth the good William Manwaring, (2d sonne of Hankin
> Manwaring) and Margaret his Wyff, daughter and heire to
> Griffin Warren, and Lady of Ightfeld, which William was a
> speciall benefactor to this Church. And he deceased the 6th
> of March 1497. On whose soule, &c.
>
> Hic iacec Domina Margareta, Domina de Ightfeld, quae fuit
> uxor Willielmi Manwaring Arm. quae obiit 4 Julii Ano 1470.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=WlSzbYWe3xEC&pg=RA1-PP3

This memorial, with William dying 96 years after his wife's birth, led me to suspect he was a good bit younger, and perhaps a second husband. This proves indeed to have been the case.

A Shropshire fine dated 1439:
CP 25/1/195/22, number 21.

Richard Quyksale, the parson of the church of Ightfeld', and Thomas del Heth', the vicar of the church of Drayton', querents, and William Maynwaryng' and Margaret, his wife, deforciants.
The manor of Ightfeld' and 18 messuages, 6 tofts, 1 mill, 480 acres of land, 74 acres of meadow, 100 acres of pasture, 100 acres of [wood?], 40 acres of heath, 20 acres of moor and 4 shillings of rent in Ightfeld', excepting 1 acre of land in the same manor.
William and Margaret have acknowledged the manor and tenements to be the right of Richard and Thomas, as those which [Richard and] Thomas have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Margaret to Richard and Thomas and their heirs for ever.
For this Richard and Thomas have granted to William and Margaret the manor and tenements and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to William and Margaret for their lives, without impeachment of waste, of the lord king and his heirs. And after the decease of William and Margaret the manor and tenements shall remain to Lawrence, son of William and Margaret, to hold to him and the heirs of his body, of the lord king and his heirs for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to George, brother of Lawrence, and the heirs of his body, (2) to Thomas, brother of George, and the heirs of his body, (3) to William and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies, (4) to William Cholmonley, son of Margaret, and the heirs of his body, (5) to Richard, brother of William Cholmonley, and the heirs of his body, (6) to Hugh, brother of Richard, brother of William, and the heirs of his body, (7) to Margaret, sister of Hugh, and the heirs of her body and (8) to the right heirs of Margaret, the wife of William.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_195_22.shtml

A 1430 inquisition regarding an unrelated Shropshire man, for some reason "also includes information about Margaret widow of Hugh Cholmeley. She holds the manor of Ightfield, annual value 10 marks, of the king in chief in her right and inheritance. She is unmarried and her marriage is worth 10 marks.. Hugh died on 7 September 1430."

So, Margaret Wareyn, born at Ightfield, bap. 11 June 1401, married first Hugh Cholmonley, having 4 children (yet surviving in 1439): William, Richard, Hugh and Margaret, probably born in the 1420s. Hugh died 7 September 1430, and within a few years Margaret remarried William Mainwaring, with three sons born by 1439, Lawrence, George and Thomas. By simple inheritance the property should have gone to William Cholmonley, her eldest son, but the fine altered the inheritance in favor of her Mainwaring children.

The first-named son, Lawrence Mainwaring, does not appear in the visitation pedigree, which portrays George as the eldest and Thomas 2nd son, so presumably Lawrence died in childhood. It adds an additional child, Margaret, wife of Philip Egerton. Margaret may have been alive in 1439 and simply not named, covered by the blanket 'right heirs' of the reversion so any subsequent son wouldn't lose their priority, or alternatively this could be Margaret Cholmonley, misremembered as a Mainwaring (she also appears as daughter of William Mainwaring in the Cheshire Egerton visitation pedigree, but given that he outlived her father by 67 years, this could have skewed family memory).

taf

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:16:06 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am in quite a quandry regarding the supposed marriage of Richard de Puleston aka
> Pyvelesdon born abt 1275 in Emral, Flintshire, Wales with Angharad de Warenne b abt
> 1283. My interest is with the Warrene side of the equasion.
>
> 2) Burke's Peerage lists Richard de Puleston's wife as Agnes, a daughter of either Sir
> William or Sir Griffith Warenne of Warrenhall, Solop.

It is about time (past time) to return to the original question. The following is all pretty speculative, but given the pedigree laid out, if she was really daughter of a Griffin de Warenne, then chronology would make it the one who I labeled gen.1, making Puleston's wife the sister of John, b. 1270s-early 1280s. However, if she was an heiress as it typically portrayed, then this would not work. She was not daughter of the last William de Blancminster because his daughters are well documented, but if there really were two Griffins at the start of the Ightfield line, it would be possible for the elder to have named a younger son 'William' after his Whitchurch brother, and this hypothetical William, son of Griffin, might have produced an heiress. That being said, the whole Warrenhall connection is insufficiently documented to form the basis for informed speculation.

taf

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2:57:24 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> It is about time (past time) to return to the original question. The following is all pretty speculative, but given the pedigree laid out, if she was really daughter of a Griffin de Warenne, then chronology would make it the one who I labeled gen.1, making Puleston's wife the sister of John, b. 1270s-early 1280s. However, if she was an heiress as it typically portrayed, then this would not work. She was not daughter of the last William de Blancminster because his daughters are well documented, but if there really were two Griffins at the start of the Ightfield line, it would be possible for the elder to have named a younger son 'William' after his Whitchurch brother, and this hypothetical William, son of Griffin, might have produced an heiress. That being said, the whole Warrenhall connection is insufficiently documented to form the basis for informed speculation.
>
> taf

Okay, I got rid of the FitzWarin references thus returning William de Albo Monasterio to the original Warren fold as is stated in Eyton's writeup, William de Albo Monasterio is the son of William FitzRanulf, the possible son of Ralph Warenne, son of William, the 2nd earl of Surrey. While I do not like the fact that "Ranulf" instead of "Radulf" is being used to translate to Ralph, I concede that one of these could very easily represent a simple transcription error.

Agnes/Angharad de Warenne who married Ricahard de Puleston aka de Pyvelesdon seems to have been the daughter of Griffin de Warenne as your work in the above sections adequately discounts her as a daughter of William. I found a record where in 1295, Richard de Pyvelsdon received approval for crenellation of Warandashale which is presumed to be the former Warrenhall. See https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=72485&resourceID=19191 see also http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/English%20sites/3208.html This makes me believe that he had somehow gained right of ownership of this property by his marriage to Agnes/Angharad, but I am not sure how as we know that Griffin de Warrene also had a son and presumed heir by the name of John who you have already determined was still living at the time Richard de Pyvelsdon was installing the moat at Warrenhall. Unless Agnes/Angharad was given Warrenhall as a seperate inheritance than what was distributed so son and heir John or as a dowery, but I can find nothing to substantiate this. I agree, there is very little documentary proof regarding the goings on of Warrenhall.

Cheers,
Gail

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 6:33:50 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Okay, I got rid of the FitzWarin references thus returning William de Albo Monasterio
> to the original Warren fold as is stated in Eyton's writeup, William de Albo Monasterio
> is the son of William FitzRanulf, the possible son of Ralph Warenne, son of William,
> the 2nd earl of Surrey. While I do not like the fact that "Ranulf" instead of "Radulf" is
> being used to translate to Ralph, I concede that one of these could very easily represent
> a simple transcription error.

Again, Clay, writing almost a century later, discounts this derivation, viewing Ranulf of Whitchurch as a likely descendant of 'Ranulf nepos' of Domesday.

> I found a record where in 1295, Richard de Pyvelsdon received approval for crenellation
> of Warandashale which is presumed to be the former Warrenhall.
> This makes me believe that he had somehow gained right of ownership of this property
> by his marriage to Agnes/Angharad, but I am not sure how as we know that Griffin de
> Warrene also had a son and presumed heir by the name of John who you have already
> determined was still living at the time Richard de Pyvelsdon was installing the moat at
> Warrenhall. Unless Agnes/Angharad was given Warrenhall as a seperate inheritance
> than what was distributed so son and heir John or as a dowery, but I can find nothing
> to substantiate this.

Have you seen what Eyton has to say? (vol. 9, p. 267)

"WARANSHALL

This place is now lost. I take it to have been originally a member of Moreton rather than of Stoke-upon-Tern, though the Lords of Stoke seem to have retained the immediate Seigneury, or rather to have disallowed any mediate right of the Lords of Moreton.

In August 1268, I find Richard de Pywelesdon arraigning John de Verdon for having disseized him of his free tenement in Warenhall and Oldefeld. The Writ is thrice repeated, in January, July, and November 1269, against John de Verdon and others. Also in August 1270, Master Richard de Pyvelesdon has a Writ against Hugh to Wlankeslowe (Longslow) concerning the destruction of a fence in Wernhale. Lastly, in June 1272, John de Verdon and others are Plaintiffs against Richard de Peulisdon in a suit where Warteshale is written as the place concerned. I know of no result to this litigation. I have spoken of Master Richard de Pulesdon before. In 1285, he held the vill of Warranshall, a member of Stoke-upon-Tern, under the heir of Radulf de Albo-Monasterio, which heir held it under Theobald de Vernon. I presume that Radulf de Albo-Monasterio, thus mentioned, was some Cadet of the Warrens of Whitchurch, whose elder line was now represented by females; but I can say no more about this Radulf, or his heir, or their mesne-tenure in Waranshall,

OF OLDFIELD, a member of Moreton Say, and coupled with Waranshall, as above, I can quote but little . . . "

Eyton does not give his source, but I have found the critical one. A roll from temp Edward I naming Shropshire tenants (https://books.google.com/books?id=a_0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR111). Under Stoke, held by Theobaldus de Verdon we find: "Mag'r Ricus Pillisdon t. villam de Warranshall de hered. Ranulphi de Albo Monasterio, et ipse de pred'c'o Theobaldo."

From this point, we must go into the weeds. It seems probable that, as Eyton suggests, this line was a branch of Warenne of Whitchurch, Ranulf (d. by 1285) perhaps being a younger brother of William of Whitchurch (k. 1260) and Griffin of Ightfield (fl. 1240s/1250, app. d. by 1278), or even as a younger brother of the younger Griffin of Ightfield (d. 1283/4). It is possible that at some point shortly after 1285, Richard Pulesdon married the heiress of Ranulf de Whitchurch of Warrenshall, and thereby promoted himself one step up the feudal heirarchy at Warrenshall. It is also possible that all the Pullesdons ever were were feudal underlings of Ranulf and his heirs, and that some confusion between the different rungs of the feudal ladder has resulted in the invention of a non-existent marriage.

As an aside, note that this Warrenshall is not Plas Warren Hall, but a different place. It is associated with Moreton Say, which is NW of Market Drayton and directly SE of Ightfield (in turn directly SE of Whitchurch).

taf

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 11:41:24 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> From this point, we must go into the weeds. It seems probable that, as Eyton suggests, this line was a branch of Warenne of Whitchurch, Ranulf (d. by 1285) perhaps being a younger brother of William of Whitchurch (k. 1260) and Griffin of Ightfield (fl. 1240s/1250, app. d. by 1278), or even as a younger brother of the younger Griffin of Ightfield (d. 1283/4). It is possible that at some point shortly after 1285, Richard Pulesdon married the heiress of Ranulf de Whitchurch of Warrenshall, and thereby promoted himself one step up the feudal heirarchy at Warrenshall. It is also possible that all the Pullesdons ever were were feudal underlings of Ranulf and his heirs, and that some confusion between the different rungs of the feudal ladder has resulted in the invention of a non-existent marriage.
> taf

I just found another source that provides a slightly different spin on this line. I wish I could post screenshots here, but will type it out as best as I can. This is from Watson, John, Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey: and their descendants to the present time. Warrington: Printed by William Eyres, 1782, Vol. I, William Sixth Earl, pg 215. This pedigree was taken from Vincent's Cheshire in the Herald's office, No. 120, pp 93, 213. Unfortunately, the only readable version I could find was on Ancestry at: https://www.ancestry.com.au/imageviewer/collections/26198/images/dvm_GenMono006923-00246-0?ssrc=&backlabel=Return&bm=true

1) Griffin Warren, Natural son of Wm. sixth Earl (by knknown mother making him illegitimate) == Isabel, sister of Robt de Pulford
2) John de Warenne == ____ (Audela?), dau. and heir of Griffin de Albo Monisterio (my note, this is likely one of the heiresses of the Wm. de Albo Monisterio I mentioned earlier--which brings into the frey the yet unprovable Albo Monisterio line [beyond William] which may or may not be Warrens by blood)
3) Griffin de Warenne == Winifred, dau. and coheir of Wm. Broxton of Cheshire
4) John de Warenne == Helen, dau. of John Chorleton
5) Griffin de Warenne == Maud, dau. of ___ , Lord Strange of Blackmere
6) Griffin de Warenne == Margaret, dau. Sir Peter Corbet, kt
7a) John de Warenne (1st Son) == Emma, dau. Sir J Cheney, kt
7a1) Griffin de Warenne (Ob S P3 Henry V)
7a2) Margaret == Wm Mainwaring
7b) Griffin de Warenne == Isabel, dau. of Aucher de Warmincham
7b1) John Warren, Esq == ___, dau. of Halbon
7b2) Richard Warren == Hawise, dau. of ___ Grey, of Salop

I'm just about ready to put this line to bed for awhile as there seems to be a lot of conflicting information about them, even in the primary sources.....

Cheers,
Gail

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 9:14:53 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> I just found another source that provides a slightly different spin on this line. I wish I could post screenshots here, but will type it out as best as I can. This is from Watson, John, Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey: and their descendants to the present time. Warrington: Printed by William Eyres, 1782, Vol. I, William Sixth Earl, pg 215. This pedigree was taken from Vincent's Cheshire in the Herald's office, No. 120, pp 93, 213. Unfortunately, the only readable version I could find was on Ancestry at: https://www.ancestry.com.au/imageviewer/collections/26198/images/dvm_GenMono006923-00246-0?ssrc=&backlabel=Return&bm=true
>
> 1) Griffin Warren, Natural son of Wm. sixth Earl (by knknown mother making him illegitimate) == Isabel, sister of Robt de Pulford
> 2) John de Warenne == ____ (Audela?), dau. and heir of Griffin de Albo Monisterio (my note, this is likely one of the heiresses of the Wm. de Albo Monisterio I mentioned earlier--which brings into the frey the yet unprovable Albo Monisterio line [beyond William] which may or may not be Warrens by blood)

William de Albo Monasterio (I) also appears in contemporary documentation as William de Warenne of Albo Monasterio (i.e. Whitchurch). When this William died in 1240, he was succeeded by William de Albo Monasterio (II) alias William de Blancminster. William de Albo Monasterio (II), murdered in 1260, married thrice. By his first wife, Amice de Audley, daughter of Henry De Audley, he had a daughter Bertrada, (who was mentally incompetent and d.s.p. in 1280). By his second wife, Eva Fitz Warin, he had a daughter: Alianore, who married first Robert le Strange and second Brewes de Knoville. By his third wife, Clemence (later called de Vernon after a remarriage), he had Matilda, wife of William de Tracy. He also had a daughter, Joan, younger than Alianore and older than Matilda, who married William de Barentyn, probably but not certainly born to Clemence. Alianore, Joan, and Matilda were named as sisters and heirs of Bertrada in her ipm, but this was subsequently challenged by the Audleys who claimed Amice's marriage portion (since Bertrada was the only daughter of Amice).

So, WIlliam I had no coheiresses, William II did but they are all accounted for.

Turning to Griffin, here are some primary records:

William de Warenne of Albo Monasterio in 1238 (d. 1240)

Griffin fitz William, holding land under William de Albo Monasterio in 1242/6
Griffin de Warenne holding Ightfield in 1255, having acquired it from Roger de Ightfield
Griffin, son of William de Blancmunster appears in 1263

I can't justify viewing these as different people. One is Griffin de Warenne, holding Ightfield right next to Whitchurch; the other is Griffin, son of William de Warenne of Blancminster/Albo Monasterio (i.e. Whitchurch). It is clear to me that there has been confusion over the fact that the family holding Whitchurch inconsistently used both the Warenne surname and a toponymic derived from their holding, exacerbated by the pressure to give this family a more prominent origin. Together, these caused the pedigree compilers to split a single man into two.

More on the lower pedigree later.

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 9:14:53 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I just found another source that provides a slightly different spin on this line. I wish I could post screenshots here, but will type it out as best as I can. This is from Watson, John, Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey: and their descendants to the present time. Warrington: Printed by William Eyres, 1782, Vol. I, William Sixth Earl, pg 215. This pedigree was taken from Vincent's Cheshire in the Herald's office, No. 120, pp 93, 213. Unfortunately, the only readable version I could find was on Ancestry at: https://www.ancestry.com.au/imageviewer/collections/26198/images/dvm_GenMono006923-00246-0?ssrc=&backlabel=Return&bm=true
> >
> > 1) Griffin Warren, Natural son of Wm. sixth Earl (by knknown mother making him illegitimate) == Isabel, sister of Robt de Pulford
> > 2) John de Warenne == ____ (Audela?), dau. and heir of Griffin de Albo Monisterio (my note, this is likely one of the heiresses of the Wm. de Albo Monisterio I mentioned earlier--which brings into the frey the yet unprovable Albo Monisterio line [beyond William] which may or may not be Warrens by blood)
> William de Albo Monasterio (I) also appears in contemporary documentation as William de Warenne of Albo Monasterio (i.e. Whitchurch). When this William died in 1240, he was succeeded by William de Albo Monasterio (II) alias William de Blancminster. William de Albo Monasterio (II), murdered in 1260, married thrice. By his first wife, Amice de Audley, daughter of Henry De Audley, he had a daughter Bertrada, (who was mentally incompetent and d.s.p.. in 1280). By his second wife, Eva Fitz Warin, he had a daughter: Alianore, who married first Robert le Strange and second Brewes de Knoville. By his third wife, Clemence (later called de Vernon after a remarriage), he had Matilda, wife of William de Tracy. He also had a daughter, Joan, younger than Alianore and older than Matilda, who married William de Barentyn, probably but not certainly born to Clemence. Alianore, Joan, and Matilda were named as sisters and heirs of Bertrada in her ipm, but this was subsequently challenged by the Audleys who claimed Amice's marriage portion (since Bertrada was the only daughter of Amice).
>
> So, WIlliam I had no coheiresses, William II did but they are all accounted for.
>
> Turning to Griffin, here are some primary records:
>
> William de Warenne of Albo Monasterio in 1238 (d. 1240)
>
> Griffin fitz William, holding land under William de Albo Monasterio in 1242/6
> Griffin de Warenne holding Ightfield in 1255, having acquired it from Roger de Ightfield
> Griffin, son of William de Blancmunster appears in 1263
>
> I can't justify viewing these as different people. One is Griffin de Warenne, holding Ightfield right next to Whitchurch; the other is Griffin, son of William de Warenne of Blancminster/Albo Monasterio (i.e. Whitchurch). It is clear to me that there has been confusion over the fact that the family holding Whitchurch inconsistently used both the Warenne surname and a toponymic derived from their holding, exacerbated by the pressure to give this family a more prominent origin. Together, these caused the pedigree compilers to split a single man into two.
>

Just to amplify this, Warren's work where this descent is given claims that John de Warenne obtained Ightfield from his wife, the daughter of Griffin de Albo Monasterio, who obtained it by marriage from Roger de Ightfield, yet we know that Ightfield was obtained by a man named Griffin de Warenne, who received it (by exchange, not inheritance) from Roger de Ightfield. Again, this indicates that the man who obtained Ightfield from Roger, known as Griffin de Warenne in the primary record, is the same man this pedigree is calling Griffin de Albo Monasterio who obtained Ightfield from Roger.

taf

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> More on the lower pedigree later.

I have been mulling this since yesterday, and so I took another dig and discovered a record I had not fully appreciated the implications of. These implications basically come down to the folllowing - I have missed a generation in all of my reconstructions, going back to the 1990s.

In 1405, Griffin Wareyn, 46, had a son of the same age as Robert son and heir of Margaret Corbet, who others had testified was born Dec. 1383. So, the son John was born about 1383, but also this puts Griffin's birth in 1359. We also have what appears to be a marriage settlement, with Griffin de Warenne executing a fine to settle reversion of Ightfield on Griffin, son of John, son of said Griffin, and his (the younger John's) wife Elizabeth. The implications are inescapable - there were two successive Griffins here, one married in 1356, the other born in 1359, and though it is not directly documented, the latter would seem to be son of the former.

0. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne alias Fitz Ranulf, d. 1240
1a. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch, k. 1270; m.1 Alice de Audley; m.2 Eva Fitz Warin; m.3 Clemence (later de Vernon)
2a(by Alice) Bertrada de Blancminster, d. 1280
2b(by Eva) Alianore, m.1 Robert le Strange, m.2 Brewes de Knowville
2c(? by Clemence) Joan, m. William de Barentyn
2d(by Clemence) Matilda m. William de Tracy
1b. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield alias Albo Monasterio alias Blancminster, fl. 1242/6, obtained Ightfield 1250, app. d. by late 1270s
2. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
3. John de Warenne alias Ightfield, b. 1272-1284, fl. 1348
4. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1299, fl. 1350s, 60s m. 1 (?), m.2 ca. 1334/5 Alice
5. (not by Alice) John de Warenne, b. say 1319, apparently d. bef. 1356
6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)
8. John Wareyn, b. ca. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
9a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
9b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m.1 Hugh de Cholmonley, who d. Hugh died on 7 September 1430, m.2 ca. 1435 William Mainwaring

There is a Rogerus Wareyn who appears at Ightfield in a 1381 poll tax roll. (https://books.google.com/books?id=-AuGBd05qE8C&pg=PA389) He would seem to be a member of this family, perhaps younger brother of Griffin, gen.6.

Warren's account gives Griffin gen.7 another son, Griffin, but the source is unclear, and given that he assigns John gen.8 a non-existent daughter, I am not going to accept this brother Griffin without further information.

taf

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > More on the lower pedigree later.
> I have been mulling this since yesterday, and so I took another dig and discovered a record I had not fully appreciated the implications of. These implications basically come down to the folllowing - I have missed a generation in all of my reconstructions, going back to the 1990s.
>
> In 1405, Griffin Wareyn, 46, had a son of the same age as Robert son and heir of Margaret Corbet, who others had testified was born Dec. 1383. So, the son John was born about 1383, but also this puts Griffin's birth in 1359.. We also have what appears to be a marriage settlement, with Griffin de Warenne executing a fine to settle reversion of Ightfield on Griffin, son of John, son of said Griffin, and his (the younger John's) wife Elizabeth. The implications are inescapable - there were two successive Griffins here, one married in 1356, the other born in 1359, and though it is not directly documented, the latter would seem to be son of the former.
>
> 0. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch alias Warenne alias Fitz Ranulf, d. 1240
> 1a. William de Blancminster alias Albo Monasterio alias Whitchurch, k. 1270; m.1 Alice de Audley; m.2 Eva Fitz Warin; m.3 Clemence (later de Vernon)

That's an error - should be Clemence (later Verdun)

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> We also have what appears to be a marriage settlement, with Griffin de
> Warenne executing a fine to settle reversion of Ightfield on Griffin, son of
> John, son of said Griffin, and his (the younger John's) wife Elizabeth.

Ugh - not one of my better efforts - "and his (the younger Griffin's) wife Elizabeth.

> 1b. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield alias Albo Monasterio alias Blancminster, fl. 1242/6, obtained Ightfield 1250, app. d. by late 1270s
> 2. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
> 3. John de Warenne alias Ightfield, b. 1272-1284, fl. 1348
> 4. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1299, fl. 1350s, 60s m. 1 (?), m.2 ca. 1334/5 Alice
> 5. (not by Alice) John de Warenne, b. say 1319, apparently d. bef. 1356
> 6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
> 7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)

There is another possible brother relating to a pedigree I mentioned the other day, then deleted for reasons having nothing to do with its content and I don't know if it went through to Usenet or not. The published Visitation of Essex includes an appendix with additional descents found in William Berry's collection of Essex pedigrees. This includes the following line taken from Harl. MSS. 1411 (https://books.google.com/books?id=g6wKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA744):
Hammeline Earl of Warren, ob 1202
Griffin Warren
John Warren
Griffin Warren
John Warren
George Warren

This would be a third different attempt at connecting this family to the Earls, but if we excise the first generation, which is clearly dubious, that also strips any chronology from the descent, and without any marriages or other people mentioned we are left guessing, but assuming that the most recent generation, George, was not a simple mistake for a third Griffin (unlikely) or that someone in tracing the ancestry of George pirated the alternating John and Griffin of the Ightfield line, there are only two ways this can be made to fit onto the Ightfield pedigree. One is to make George the younger brother of Griffin, gen. 6, the husband of Elizabeth. The pedigree would then match, giving father John, grandfather Griffin, then John then Griffin - the only place in the pedigree where we have this precise 4-generation span of alternating names. The other possibility is to shift it down two generations, with the first Griffin of this Essex pedigree aligning with the one born about 1299, and the younger Griffin matching the husband of Elizabeth. The John in the next generation would then be a younger brother of the Griffin b. ca. 1359, and George that man's nephew.

For what it's worth, Harl. Mss 1411 is described in the catalogue of Harleian manuscripts as a thin volume containing a collection of 'pedigrees and descents' of noble families mostly related to the House of Norfolk. Folio 37 has a pedigree of "Warren Earl of Surrey".
https://books.google.com/books?id=XqZJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA35

taf

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> 8. John Wareyn, b. ca. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 9a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
> 9b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m.1 Hugh de Cholmonley, who d. Hugh died on 7 September 1430, m.2 ca. 1435 William Mainwaring

The visitation pedigree assigns this John, gen.8, a wife named Matilda, daughter of John Cheney of Willaston. A version of this marriage also appears in Ormerod, where he relates that Sir John Cheyne of Willaston married Maud, daughter and heiress of Thomas de Capenhurst, and had two daughters and coheiresses, Maud, wife of William de Cholmondeley, and Margaret, wife of John Warren of Ightfield. Unfortunately, no source is given. (iii. 491).

Elsewhere (ii. 313) he reports that 17 Edw. III, Thomas de Capenhurst granted to his son and heir Thomas, along with the latter's wife Johanna, daughter of Robert Hough of Thornton-Hough, five messuages and all his lands in Capenhurst. [my note: probably a marriage settlement]. Further, that Thomas jun had two coheiresses, ____ who married Robert de Pulle (from whom Poole, Pole), "the superior lord", and brought him some Capenhurst lands, and the other coheiress, Maud, married John Cheney of Willaston, knt, "whose daughter and coheiresses (sic) became the wife of William de Cholmondeley."

taf

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 1:26:46 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > We also have what appears to be a marriage settlement, with Griffin de
> > Warenne executing a fine to settle reversion of Ightfield on Griffin, son of
> > John, son of said Griffin, and his (the younger John's) wife Elizabeth.
> Ugh - not one of my better efforts - "and his (the younger Griffin's) wife Elizabeth.
> > 1b. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield alias Albo Monasterio alias Blancminster, fl. 1242/6, obtained Ightfield 1250, app. d. by late 1270s
> > 2. Griffin de Warenne alias Ightfield, d. 1283/4, m. Isabel de Pulford (she m. 2, by 1292, Warin de Grantvalour)
> > 3. John de Warenne alias Ightfield, b. 1272-1284, fl. 1348
> > 4. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1299, fl. 1350s, 60s m. 1 (?), m.2 ca. 1334/5 Alice
> > 5. (not by Alice) John de Warenne, b. say 1319, apparently d. bef. 1356
> > 6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
> > 7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)
> There is another possible brother relating to a pedigree I mentioned the other day, then deleted for reasons having nothing to do with its content and I don't know if it went through to Usenet or not. The published Visitation of Essex includes an appendix with additional descents found in William Berry's collection of Essex pedigrees. This includes the following line taken from Harl. MSS. 1411 (https://books.google.com/books?id=g6wKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA744):
> Hammeline Earl of Warren, ob 1202
> Griffin Warren
> John Warren
> Griffin Warren
> John Warren
> George Warren
>
> This would be a third different attempt at connecting this family to the Earls, but if we excise the first generation, which is clearly dubious, that also strips any chronology from the descent, and without any marriages or other people mentioned we are left guessing, but assuming that the most recent generation, George, was not a simple mistake for a third Griffin (unlikely) or that someone in tracing the ancestry of George pirated the alternating John and Griffin of the Ightfield line, there are only two ways this can be made to fit onto the Ightfield pedigree. One is to make George the younger brother of Griffin, gen. 6, the husband of Elizabeth. The pedigree would then match, giving father John, grandfather Griffin, then John then Griffin - the only place in the pedigree where we have this precise 4-generation span of alternating names. The other possibility is to shift it down two generations, with the first Griffin of this Essex pedigree aligning with the one born about 1299, and the younger Griffin matching the husband of Elizabeth. The John in the next generation would then be a younger brother of the Griffin b. ca. 1359, and George that man's nephew.
>
> For what it's worth, Harl. Mss 1411 is described in the catalogue of Harleian manuscripts as a thin volume containing a collection of 'pedigrees and descents' of noble families mostly related to the House of Norfolk. Folio 37 has a pedigree of "Warren Earl of Surrey".
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XqZJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA35
>
> taf

I really like your iteration of the last pedigree except when you combined William Warren aka Blanchminster with WIlliam Fitz Ranulf as it seems to leave out a generation and some significant references. In Anderson, John Corbet (1864). Shropshire, Its Early History and Antiquities …. Willis and Sotheran. pp. 402–404 it is written (citing Domesday) that Whitchurch, originally called Weston (or Westune) prior to the construction of the great white church there, was held by Willelm de Warenne (under) Earl Roger (likely his 1st cousin Earl Roger de Montgomery). This was supposedly Warrene's only holding in Shropshire and was used as a strategic stronghold along the Welsh border. This passage goes on to state that under the earls Warren and Surrey, Whitchurch was held by "vassals descending from William de Warenne, alias Fitz Ranulf, who was related to the elder line." https://archive.org/details/cu31924028057671/page/n519/mode/2up see also Memorials of Old Shropshire https://www.google.com/books/edition/Memorials_of_Old_Shropshire/VjxAoYdBimsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Albo+Monasterio&pg=PA42&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Albo%20Monasterio&f=false

William Fitz Ranulf's first appearance was on the Pipe Roll of 1176 when he was security for his neighbor, the lord of Ightfield. And on November 8, 1221, a fine was levied at Shrewsbury between William Fitz Radulf, Plaintiff, and William de Blancmustier, Tenant...where "the former had been claimant under a Suit of mort d'ancestre", so these cannot be the same person. https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesshro16eytogoog/page/n28/mode/2up

I'm guessing that William Fitz Radulf, nephew of William, the 1st Earl of Surrey mentioned by Farrer as "Ranulph nepos", was brought in after the conquest to manage that singular holding in Shropshire.

Regarding the Harl. Mss 1411 assertion that Griffin Warren was a son of Hamelin, I have to strongly disagree. The only children of Hamelin that I have been able to document to date are: William de Warenne (my ancestor), 5th Earl of Surrey, his only son and heir, who married Maud Marshal, Ella, who married Robert de Newburgh and William Fitz William, Maud who married Henry II, Count of Eu and Henry d'Estouteville, and lastly, Isabel, who married Robert de Lacy of Pontefract, Gilbert de l'Aigle. As an aside, the name George does not begin to appear in this line until Lawrence de Warren of Poynton who was b abt 1476. This pedigree outlined int he Mss is pure fancy.

Cheers,
Gail

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-7, sar...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Regarding the Harl. Mss 1411 assertion that Griffin Warren was a son of Hamelin, I have
> to strongly disagree.

No question. Just as the Jeffrey of the visitation, and making Griffin the son of Earl William - these are all just attempts to claim the Earls as ancestors. The unwillingness to admit one's ancestors were mundane often led Tudor-era families to dangle their known pedigree onto a famous ancestor (similar to how the Spencers made themselves descendants of the Despenser Earls).

> As an aside, the name George does not begin to appear in this line until Lawrence de
> Warren of Poynton who was b abt 1476.

That we know of, but with the Ightfield family all we have is eldest male to eldest male to eldest male, there is a whole lot of room for other names we just don't know.

> This pedigree outlined int he Mss is pure fancy.

Without knowing its genealogical context, it is hard to say. There is no reason for the Mss to have thrown in a line leading to some arbitrary George Warren separated from the earls by five generations, yet still centuries before the pedigree was recorded, just for its own sake. This clearly leads somewhere - a daughter who brought this bloodline to some other family that either formed part of that pedigree or was presented on another page of the collection. Without that context we are left with just names and only so much can be read into it. It is certainly possible that George was a legitimate person of unknown parentage, to whom the Ightfield pedigree has been arbitrarily attached as a way of giving his descendants a fraudulent line to the Warren earls, or alternatively there really could be a George who was an Ightfield younger son leaving little trace in the historical record, like the Roger only found thusfar in one tax list, who passed on via a daughter a genealogical connection to the Ightfield line that they thought worth remembering (and elevating).

taf

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> The visitation pedigree assigns this John, gen.8, a wife named Matilda, daughter of John Cheney of Willaston. A version of this marriage also appears in Ormerod, where he relates that Sir John Cheyne of Willaston married Maud, daughter and heiress of Thomas de Capenhurst, and had two daughters and coheiresses, Maud, wife of William de Cholmondeley, and Margaret, wife of John Warren of Ightfield. Unfortunately, no source is given. (iii. 491).
>
> Elsewhere (ii. 313) he reports that 17 Edw. III, Thomas de Capenhurst granted to his son and heir Thomas, along with the latter's wife Johanna, daughter of Robert Hough of Thornton-Hough, five messuages and all his lands in Capenhurst. [my note: probably a marriage settlement]. Further, that Thomas jun had two coheiresses, ____ who married Robert de Pulle (from whom Poole, Pole), "the superior lord", and brought him some Capenhurst lands, and the other coheiress, Maud, married John Cheney of Willaston, knt, "whose daughter and coheiresses (sic) became the wife of William de Cholmondeley."
>

This continues to puzzle me. I cannot find any other reference to the daughter Margaret who supposedly married John Wareyn, while frequent mention of William Cholmondeley marrying the heiress (not coheiress) of Cheyne of Willaston. It is particularly troublesome that the visitation pedigree instead gives John Wareyn a wife with the same name as Cholmondeley's wife. It is possible that there were two daughters here, one forgotten because of the nature of the division, but another possibility occurred to me. Given that we know John Wareyn died prematurely, shortly followed by his only son, his widow could have remarried to Cholmondeley. If she survived her son Griffin, then her sole heir would have been her eldest Cholmondeley son. This is a reconstruction that could explain the confusion, or it could be something else entirely.

Ormerod makes reference to Maud (Cheyne) Cholmondeley being named in the 8 Hen V inquisition post mortem of Christopher de Hogh (del Hoghe), yet there is no recorded IPM that I can find for this person. Anyone have any clue?

taf

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:34:51 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> No question. Just as the Jeffrey of the visitation, and making Griffin the son of Earl William - these are all just attempts to claim the Earls as ancestors. The unwillingness to admit one's ancestors were mundane often led Tudor-era families to dangle their known pedigree onto a famous ancestor (similar to how the Spencers made themselves descendants of the Despenser Earls).

So very true. It is still very astonishing to me how frequently this occurred. Perhaps it is because the "class system" that spun off of the old feudal system was much more important then than it is in today's society except for a very few.

> > As an aside, the name George does not begin to appear in this line until Lawrence de
> > Warren of Poynton who was b abt 1476.
> That we know of, but with the Ightfield family all we have is eldest male to eldest male to eldest male, there is a whole lot of room for other names we just don't know.

Yes, I was making to great of a generalization. There may be a Ightfield George who has been lost to history. Even many of the descendants of the Warren earls of Surrey fell into some obscurity until the line re-established itself as a result of holding a sizable monopoly in the fur trading business in the colonies.

> Without knowing its genealogical context, it is hard to say. There is no reason for the Mss to have thrown in a line leading to some arbitrary George Warren separated from the earls by five generations, yet still centuries before the pedigree was recorded, just for its own sake. This clearly leads somewhere - a daughter who brought this bloodline to some other family that either formed part of that pedigree or was presented on another page of the collection. Without that context we are left with just names and only so much can be read into it. It is certainly possible that George was a legitimate person of unknown parentage, to whom the Ightfield pedigree has been arbitrarily attached as a way of giving his descendants a fraudulent line to the Warren earls, or alternatively there really could be a George who was an Ightfield younger son leaving little trace in the historical record, like the Roger only found thusfar in one tax list, who passed on via a daughter a genealogical connection to the Ightfield line that they thought worth remembering (and elevating).
>
> taf

Again, I have to agree with you. At least a little more of the Ightfield Warrens have been brought to light in these postings. Thans for digging into this with me!!

Cheers,
Gail

Is it possible that the Cholmondeley-Cheney marriage is just a garbled reference to the first marriage of Margaret (9b) Wareyn to Hugh Cholmondeley? While the Ightfield inheritance passed to her Mainwaring children by the 1439 fine noted above, wouldn’t the Capenhurst inheritance still have passed to her Cholmondeley children? The Cholmondeley pedigrees all have an awkward gap in the 15th century right after the supposed Cheney marriage, as noted by Ormerod. (https://books.google.com/books?id=dIY1AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA632 )

Also, Margaret (9b) Wareyn was apparently first betrothed to John de Egerton, son of her guardian Philip de Egerton, according to a Chancery suit where John complained that his wife Margaret, daughter of John Wareyn, had beed abducted by Richard de Cholmondeley and his son Hugh. (https://books.google.com/books?id=9wo5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA243 ) (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7436483 ) (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no4/IMG_0164.htm ) This raises questions about the marriage shown in the pedigree between Margaret’s daughter Margery Mainwaring and Philip Egerton, who was the son of her first husband, John Egerton.

As for the connection between the Ightfield Warrens and the Warrens of Poynton, perhaps one source of confusion was the connections between the Mainwarings of Ightfield and the Warrens of Poynton. For instance, William Mainwaring of Ightfield, the 2nd husband of Margaret (9b) Wareyn, was half-brother to Margaret Bulkeley who was the wife of Sir Laurence Warren of Poynton & Stockton (d. 1444). Margaret Bulkeley was a daughter of William of Ightfield’s mother Margery Venables, by her first husband Richard Bulkeley of Cheadle. In 1414, “Laurence le Warayne” was one of the witnesses to a grant from “Randolph le Maynwaryng and Margery, his wife” (William of Ightfield’s parents), to “Richard de Bulkyley, son of Richard de Bulkyley, of Cheadle” (that is, to Margery’s son by her first husband). (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4452482 ) Also, William Mainwaring’s uncle, John Mainwaring of Over Peover, was married to Laurence Warren’s widowed grandmother, Margaret. It seems likely, then, that Laurence Mainwaring, the eldest son of William Mainwaring and Margaret (9b) Wareyn, was named for his uncle Sir Laurence Warren of Poynton. Perhaps these connections (or a garbled reading of references to these connections) led researchers to assume that the Ightfield Warrens were somehow connected to the Poynton Warrens.

As for the “Jeffery Warren” atop the Mainwaring of Ightfield pedigree, one possible explanation is a connection with the family of Penington of Poynton in Shropshire. In 1348, “Griffin, the son of John Wareyn” (apparently #4 in TAF’s list) is shown as a debtor of Edmund le Botiller, of Wem. (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9690193 ) Another of Botiller’s debtors in that record is one “Philip, lord of Poynton.” This is not the Poynton in Cheshire, but rather the Poynton which is a hamlet in High Ercall in Bradford Hundred in Shropshire. This “Philip, lord of Poynton” is apparently Philip de Penington, who was son of one Geoffrey de Penington, who was himself sometimes styled “Geoffrey, lord of Poynton.” (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9683582 ) In Eyton’s account of this family, he identifies men named Roger and Hamo in the earliest generation. (https://books.google.com/books?id=rfY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3 ) Is it possible that a researcher found references to dealings between the Ightfield Warrens and these “lords of Poynton”—and perhaps to property that had once been held by a man named “Hamo”—and assumed that they referred to a branch of the Surrey family?

Jesse

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-7, jesse....@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible that the Cholmondeley-Cheney marriage is just a garbled reference to
> the first marriage of Margaret (9b) Wareyn to Hugh Cholmondeley? While the Ightfield
> inheritance passed to her Mainwaring children by the 1439 fine noted above, wouldn’t
> the Capenhurst inheritance still have passed to her Cholmondeley children? The
> Cholmondeley pedigrees all have an awkward gap in the 15th century right after the
> supposed Cheney marriage, as noted by Ormerod.

Hmm. That is an interesting possibility.

> Also, Margaret (9b) Wareyn was apparently first betrothed to John de Egerton, son of
> her guardian Philip de Egerton, according to a Chancery suit where John complained
> that his wife Margaret, daughter of John Wareyn, had beed abducted by Richard de
> Cholmondeley and his son Hugh.

Thanks for this. I had searched the TNA Catalogue for all kinds of variant spellings of these people but didn't happen to hit on this specific combination - Cholmoundesley, and likewise I had searched the whole internet for Gryffyth Wareyn, but not Gryffyth le Wareyn.

All other issues aside, it clearly identifies Hugh's father. I note that TNA gives the document dates 1406-7 or 1417-1424. Obviously it had to fall in the latter span given it refers to the death of Griffin.

The transcript/translation is imperfect, and I will have to see if any more blood can be drawn from the stone. Examples: it refers to "John Wareyn, son and heir of Henry Gryffyth le Wareyn", but the name Henry is not present in the original that says "John Wareyn fitz & heir Gryffyth le Wareyn" - the translator has done a double take, first accurately reading ' son and heir', then apparently losing his place and reading the last word again as the abbreviated name Hen.

Also, the lacunae are not just unreadable text - the editor seems to have taken the damaged sections as convenient break points to jump entire lines of text, including some that probably shouldn't have been skipped. For example, the first reference to Gryffyth the younger in the transcript calls him 'the said Gryffyth', indicating he had been mentioned previously - that is at the beginning of line 3 of the document, where the name Gryffyth appears as an interpolation between lines 2 & 3, and then the third line then has readable text "& heir of the said John" continuing for the rest of the line before becoming hard to read at the end. The editor just skips this and the rest of line 3 and jumps straight to the middle of line 4 where the text on the other side of the lacuna appears: "le nonn age del dit Gryffyth fitz & heir du dit John Wareyn . . ." Similarly, the next lacuna jumps from the end of line 4 to the middle of line 7, with omitted reference to John and Philip Eggerton in between. Where the editor has an ending lacuna with the words ". . . (rest illegible)" there are actually four more lines of text. There probably isn't much more genealogically-relevant material, but just know that this is an extraction, not everything that is readable.

> This raises questions about the marriage shown in the pedigree between Margaret’s
> daughter Margery Mainwaring and Philip Egerton, who was the son of her first husband,
> John Egerton.

I see two options here. 1) that this is further confusion (at a minimum turning Margaret Cholmondeley, daughter of Margaret Wareyn and Hugh, into Margaret Mainwaring, or more significantly confusing generations as well with this being some kind of misplaced ghost of the Egerton Wareyn marriage); or 2) that this is authentic, an attempt to resolve the bad blood created in the prior generation (which could be the case whichever of Margaret Wareyn's husbands was the father).

This all calls for more digging as time permits.
taf

A brief addition to the most recent reconstruction:

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:10:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> 4. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1299, fl. 1350s, 60s m. 1 (?), m.2 ca. 1334/5 Alice
> 5. (not by Alice) John de Warenne, b. say 1319, apparently d. bef. 1356
> 6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
> 7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)
> 8. John Wareyn, b. ca. 1383, d. 4 Feb 1413
> 9a. Griffith Wareyn, b. ca. 1399/1400, d. 5 October 1415, s.p.
> 9b. Margaret Wareyn, bap. 11 June 1401 m.1 Hugh de Cholmonley, who d. Hugh died on 7 September 1430, m.2 ca. 1435 William Mainwaring

From Recognizance Rolls of Chester:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011698704&view=1up&seq=800&skin=2021

30 July 1389, Griffin son of John de Warren/Warenna/Wareyn, to John Brescy, clerk, recognizance for 4l.

(as it names his father, probably to distinguish him from his son, this tells us that Griffin, gen.6, was still living in 1389)

taf

Unfortunately chronology is a devil and you have started with a copy of a claim which has no sources at all.
We have no idea whatsoever when this Richard Puleston of Emral was born. Not even within thirty years either side.

He was "living" 9E2 so I suppose there is some document with that date mentioning him.

His son and heir Roger de Puleston either died *in* 13E3 or he was yet living 20E3.
This discrepancy makes me wonder if this is not two generations here

This last had a "second son but eventual heir" in Richard de Puleston of Emral, esq who m Lucy verch Madoc
HE died "abt 12R2"

Other then these dates, we should not be inventing chronology which has no source.
So start by removing "about 1275"

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:42:40 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Unfortunately chronology is a devil and you have started with a copy of a claim which has no sources at all.
> We have no idea whatsoever when this Richard Puleston of Emral was born. Not even within thirty years either side.

As discussed earlier in the thread, Eyton documents Richard Puleston holding lands in Warrenshall in 1268, 1270, 1272, and 1285, plus Gail had 1295 and 1314, and you are adding 9E2, so that puts his active range 1268 (when he was acting as an adult) and 1315/6. As such, his birth would be in the early-to-mid 1240s at the latest, while giving him a reasonable lifespan of 80 years or less through 1315/6 we arrive at a a reasonable ballpark in the range of 1235-1245. One just can't make him old enough in 1315/6 to have a 60 year range (30 on each side) given that he first shows up 48 years earlier.

taf

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 6:51:24 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:42:40 PM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Unfortunately chronology is a devil and you have started with a copy of a claim which has no sources at all.
> > We have no idea whatsoever when this Richard Puleston of Emral was born.. Not even within thirty years either side.
> As discussed earlier in the thread, Eyton documents Richard Puleston holding lands in Warrenshall in 1268, 1270, 1272, and 1285, plus Gail had 1295 and 1314, and you are adding 9E2, so that puts his active range 1268 (when he was acting as an adult) and 1315/6. As such, his birth would be in the early-to-mid 1240s at the latest, while giving him a reasonable lifespan of 80 years or less through 1315/6 we arrive at a a reasonable ballpark in the range of 1235-1245. One just can't make him old enough in 1315/6 to have a 60 year range (30 on each side) given that he first shows up 48 years earlier.
>
> taf

It could also be that there was a Richard son of another Richard, so two men, with an active life of this 50 or so years
I do know that his father is supposed to be that Roger living under E1 and supposed seized and hung by the Welsh
Which could all be a legend

The date I gave by the way came from Burke's

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Genealogical_and_Heraldic_Dictionary_o/mDA_AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=puleston&pg=RA1-PA816-IA1&printsec=frontcover
Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, "Puleston"

See Page 815

Hi Todd and everyone on this thread.

OnFriday, 25 June 2021 at 01:47:05 UTC+2, taf wrote:
> > 6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
> > 7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)

I found a Calendar of Inquisiton record to back up a birth date of 1359, for the 2nd Griffin:

Excerpt from Calendars of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, vol 1
Proof of age of Robert son and heir of Margaret Corbet, 18 March 1405
Griffin Wareyn, 46, had a son of the same age. (testifying that Robert was born 8 Dec. 1383)

- Link for full record: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp376-398

And thanks for the wonderful research, that helps us so much.
- Cheers, Vanessa Weber

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 5:53:00 AM UTC-8, Vanessa Weber wrote:
> Hi Todd and everyone on this thread.
> OnFriday, 25 June 2021 at 01:47:05 UTC+2, taf wrote:
> > > 6. Griffin de Warenne, b. say 1339, m. bef. 1356, Elizabeth
> > > 7. (probably by Elizabeth) Griffin Wareyn, b. ca. 1359 (there are reports that a Griffin 1405, but I can't find the source, and can't be certain if it was father or son)
> I found a Calendar of Inquisiton record to back up a birth date of 1359, for the 2nd Griffin:
>

Ah. I had the ipm, indeed, it was the starting point for that whole reevaluating the line, I just didn't put two and two together that it was the basis for the 1405 date I had seen elsewhere without source.

taf

The 1359 birth year would be for that Griffin who married Margaret Corbet ?

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:01:12 AM UTC-8, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> The 1359 birth year would be for that Griffin who married Margaret Corbet ?

The only record I have found for this marriage is the visitation, and this is too many generation back for its accuracy to be taken for granted, so I can't even be certain that any Griffin married Margaret Corbet. That said, it does show the husband of Margaret Corbet as Griffin, son of Griffin, and father of the John who married the Cheney heiress, so the Griffin born in 1359 would appear to be the man intended, and further, this is the Griffin, aged 46 in 1405, who particulated in the proof of age for Robert Corbet, son of Margaret Corbet (widow of Robert), so there was a social connection between the families in this generation. However, the Corbet branch in question, those of Moreton Corbet, never used the name name given Griffin's father-in-law in the visitation, Peter, a name largely restricted to Corbet of Caus and the related Corbet of Leigh.

taf