On Monday, November 28, 2005 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Sutton wrote:
> Whoever she was, the following court case quoted in SC XV page 122, shown
> that the wife of Nicholas Beke and the mother of Elizabeth Beke, was married
> to Sir Nicholas by 30 March 1347.
> At a plea of Assize taken at Lichfield before Hugh Huls and Roger Horton,
> with whom was associated Thomas Heuster, Justices assigned, etc., on the
> Tuesday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula 9 H. IV -
> "...............The jury stated that as regarded the manor of Teyne, one
> Nicholas Beek, chivaler, the grandfather of Matilda the plaintiff, and whose
> heir she was, viz. father of Elizabeth, mother of the said Matilda, was
> formerly seised in demesne as of fee of the manor, and by his deed which was
> given in evidence, and which was dated from Teyne the Friday after the Feast
> of the Annunciation 21 E.III, had granted it to one John Beek, the parson of
> Chekeley, and the said John Beek, being so seised of the manor, had
> reconveyed it to the said Nicholas, and to one Joan, late his wife, and to
> the heirs of their bodies, and after the deaths of Nicholas and Joan, the
> said manor of Teyne descended to one Elizabeth, as their daughter and heir
> ...................."
> Peter Sutton

Hello,

It has been quite a long time since this posting, but I would like to know if there are any alternatives to the wife of Nicholas Beke and mother of Elizabeth.

Looking through the wikipedia article on John de Ipstones, it gives a footnote on his lawsuit against Matilda Swynnerton.
It mentions that John claimed that Matilda was illegitimate and therefore could not inherit Beke properties.

The reference for the footnote takes us a Collections for a History of Staffordshiere, listing Extracts from Plead Rolls, p. 169

https://archive.org/details/collectionsforhi13staf/page/168/mode/2up?view=theater

It has a footnote commenting on John's claim, which may have been that Matilda was illegitimate because her parents were within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, but the summary does not explain how, or if that was true. It seems that the bishop of Coventry was going to decide on the matter.

J. Sardina