On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 5:28:13 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:

> There are then two apparetly conflicting claims
>
> Alexander /St John/ of East Luccombe (Somers.) and Stockleigh Luccombe, co Devon
> living in 1339 when a settlement, dead by 1345
>
> had a son
> Oliver /St John/ , Knt
> adult when he did fealty 18 Jul 1335
> d Aug 1373
> m
> Elizabeth de /Luccombe/ , Manor of East Luccombe
> born 20 May 1320 Stockleigh, Luccombe; only heir of her brother John Luccombe "aged 13 and upwards" 1334
>
> had a son
> John /St John/
> dead by 1380 "died in parts unknown beyond rhe seas"
> m
> Elizabeth //
> living in 1385
>
> had a son
> John /St John/
> born at Salisbury
> declared Illegitimate after a lengthy years long lawsuit
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx
>
> Constrast and compare to
> John /St John/
> m
> Isabel /Paveley/
>
> had a son
> Oliver /St John/
> m
> Elizabeth de la /Bere/
> co-heiress of her father
>
> had a son
> John /St John/ , Mayor of Bordeaux 1414-21; Knt
> born New Sarum; minor in 1381, adult by 1395 when by deed he entailed
> m Elizabeth Paulet

So long as one is willing to test the St. John of Fonmon and Bletsoe pedigree as presented in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" agaist the available evidence, the trust about the two separate and district St. John family that have been been combined into a single pedigee will remain obscure.

Will Johnson and I agree that one of these St. John families is the St. John family of East Luccombe, Somerset and Stockleigh Luccombe, Devon. This Alexander St. John married 2nd to Elizabeth, the widow of Hugh de Luccombe and brought both of this manors into this St. John Family. The problem is, this Alexander St. John does not belong in the family tree of William St. John of Fonmon, the ancestor of the St. Johns of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire. The evidence of this is follows:

Wikipedia has an article on Walter de Claville, a Norman magnate and one of the 52 Domesday Book tenants-in-chief of King William the Conqueror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_de_Claville Among the 32 separate entries in the Domesday Book and the Red Book of the Exchequer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_of_the_Exchequer for Walter de Claville was the fee of Instow, in the parish of Instow granted to him for the Honour of Gloucester stating the mesne tenant was John de Sancto Johanne.

The manor of Instow was passed down in that St. John family from the time of the Domesday Book to Sir John St. John, Knight (1255-1316), Lord of Langham, Essex, and owner of the manor Instow, Devon, who married Beatrix Broy.
The
In a set of books called Inquisitions and Assessments Relationg To Feudal Aids With Other Analogous Documents, by The Deputy Keeper of the Records, (1899, in Vol. I, for the county of Devon in the Hundredth of Freminton, there is a 1303 entry stating the Johannes de Sancto Johanne was a tenant of a ¼ part of Innestowe. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066345474&view=1up&seq=410&q1=freminton and a 1316 entry listing the members of the town of Ynnstowe with Johannes de Sancto Johanne as the Lord of same. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066345474&view=1up&seq=413&q1=freminton and a 1346 entry stating that Olivero de Sancto Johanne owned ¼ part in Ynnstowe as the honor of Gloucester which Johannes de Sancto Johanne once held. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066345474&view=1up&seq=451&q1=freminton

The Register of John de Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, 1327-1369, at page 834, contains a 1336 entry in which Alexandrum de Sancto John, Patron of the church in Yenestowe presented Thomam de Middelneye to be admitted to the church for Yenestowe, https://archive.org/details/05089497.1331.emory.edu/page/833/mode/2up and at page 1318 in 1337 Alexander de Seynt Johan was noted as Patron of the church at Yunstowe, https://archive.org/details/registerjohndeg00wincgoog/page/1318/mode/2up and at page 1353 in 1346 Beatrix de Sancto John is mentioned as a Patron in Yoenestowe. https://archive.org/details/registerjohndeg00wincgoog/page/1352/mode/2up

These 14th Century records of the St. Johns of Instow match match what is known about the St. John family of East Luccombe and Stockleigh Luccombe. They are the same family. John St. John and Beatrix of Instow had a son Alexander St. John who died by 1345. In 1346 Oliver St. John owned 1/4 part of Instow. These are the same Alexander and Oliver St. Johns of East Luccombe and Stockleigh Luccombe. This is the same St. John whose patriarch in England was John St. John who was the tenant of Instow as per the the Domesday Book entry in 1086 for Walter de Claville. So, the St. Johns of Instow, Devon, Stockleigh Luccombe, Devon and East Luccombe, Somerset, are descended from a John St. John who lived in 1086. While the St. Johns of Fonmon were descended from Adam de Port and his son William St. John changed his name (but not his de Port DNA) to St. John. So if they are from different families, their Y-cromosome DNA would be different.

In the 1429 Beauchamp Survey of Glamorgan there is an Alexander St. John listed as the owner of the manor of Uchelolau/Highlight in Glamorgan Wales. The manor of Uchelolau/Highlight is either adjacent to or practically adjacent to the manors in the Lordship of Penmark, Glamorgan Wales that were owned by the St. John family of Fonmon (and Bletsoe, Bedfordshire). DNA test results prove that this Alexander St. John of Uchelolau, Glamorgan, Wales is not related in any meaningful way with the St. Johns of Fonmon and Bletsoe, Bedfordshire. Here is a link to to the publicly available St. John DNA results related to these two families. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/StJohn?iframe=ycolorized In addition there are two private Y-chromosome DNA test result of living male St. Johns who are in the direct male line of descent from John St. John of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire who died in 1524/25, one though his eldest son, John St. John, of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire who died in 1558 and one through his 2nd son, Oliver St. John, that show that the St. Johns of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire belong to haplogroup I-M 253. The St. John of Uchelolau belong to Haplogroup R-M173 or R-M269 which have no relationship to the St. John of haplogroup I-M253.

After you remove John St. John who married Beatrix Broy and Alexander St. John who married Elizabeth (Umfreville) from the St John pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" the true genealogy starts to come into focus.. William St. John of Fonmon had a son, John St. John, but not John St. John who married Isabel, widow of John Paveley, Jr. (see my initial posting in the thread). This John St. John's wife is unknown (no reason to believe it was an Umfreville or a Paulet). This John St. John and unknown wife had a son, Oliver St. John who married Elizabeth de la Bere, daughter of Sir John de la Bere, followed by John St John who married Isabel, widow of John Paveley, Jr. (she was not the daughter of Sir John Paveley as it says in the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire"). There is no generation in the pedigree of the St. John family of Bletsoe where a St. John married a Paulet, despite unsourced claims to the contrary (i am not saying that there is not a St John who married a Paulet. I am saying that that any such Paulet marriage does not belong in the pedigree of the St. John family of Bletsoe).

So, if you consider this evidence as persuasive as I do, it becomes clear that the St. John of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire pedgree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" is wrong in the early generations.. The generations in that pedigree of John St. John who married Beatrix Broy and their Son, Alexander St John who married Elizabeth do not belong in the pedigree of the St. John family of Fonmon and Bletsoe. They were imported by wrongfully merging them with the St. Johns of Fonmon. That Alexander did not marry Elizabeth Umfreville (a fictitious person). Instead, his 2nd wife was Elizabeth, the widow of Hugh de Luccombe.

There are other confusions that resulted from the wrongful merging of these two St. John families. That is because Oliver St. John of East Luccombe married Elizabeth de Luccombe, daughter of Hugh Luccombe and Elizabeth who later became this Alexander St. John's (of East Luccombe) 2nd wife. This Oliver St. John and Elizabeth de Luccombe had a son, John St. John, who married an Elizabeth de la Bere, daughter of Sir John de la Bere. This was a different Sir John de la Bere and daughter, Elizabeth de la Bere, than the Sir John de la Bere who had a daughter Elizabeth de la Bere who married Oliver St. John of Fonmon. The Sir John de la Bere whose daughter, Elizabeth, married John St. John of East Luccombe was married to Agnes Turberville and was associated with Weobley Castle in Wales. John St. John of East Luccombe who married Elizabeth de la Bere was the John St. John who died beyond the seas in the 1370s and who had a son, John St John who was determined to be supposititious or illegitimate. See the pedigree chart at https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Arundel-4

Once you admit that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" cannot be trusted in the early generations, you need to open your mind to the likelihood that it may also be wrong in other early generations. William St. John of Fonmon did have a probable son, John St. John, but not the one who married Beatrix Broy and not the John St. John who married Isabel, widow of John Paveley, Jr. (see my opening post). This John St. John had a son Oliver St. John who married Elizabeth de la Bere. (not the Oliver St. John of East Luccombe). This Oliver St. John and Elizabeth de la Bere had a son, John St. John who married Isabel, widow of John Paveley, Jr., Then the pedigree is correct for the next generations. John St.. John and Isabel were the parents of Oliver St. John who married Margaret Beauchamp, etc.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol5/pp245-289

does not agree that Isabel the wife of John St John was the widow of Paveley
Rather they call her, his daughter and heiress

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:41:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol5/pp245-289
>
> does not agree that Isabel the wife of John St John was the widow of Paveley
> Rather they call her, his daughter and heiress
I I agree that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) says that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley and she married first John Paveley, Jr.. I tried to make a solid documented case in my last post to show that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" has made some serious mistakes in the early generations represented on the pedigree. If one agree with that, it makes other parts of the early generations of that pedigree suspect and not to be trust as correct with independent primary source confirming evidence.

When you think about the claim that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley (who married Joan Stury) and she (Isabel) married John Paveley, Jr., it seems suspicious (i.e., a Paveley marrying a Paveley) That would mean that John Paveley, Jr., was the son of a different John Paveley (Sr.) other than the John Paveley, father of Isabel. When one looks for that second John Paveley who could be John Paveley, Jr's father other than the one who married Joan Stury he cannot be found.

If you look at the 4th post in this this thread (my post), the evidence presented there supports the conclusion that John Paveley who was married to Joan Stury was the father of John Paveley, Jr., who married Isabel of an unknown surname. The most significant piece of evidence is that Joan (Stury's) Paveley's IPM in 1414 finds that Margery, the wife of John Bryan, a daughter of her sister Sybil, was her next heir (this corrects my misstatement of Joan (Stury) Paveley's heir as per the IPM that I made in the 4th post in this thread). If Isabel was Joan's child, the IPM would have found that she (Isabel) was Joan's (Stury's) Paveley's next heir, rather than the daughter of her sister.

Cheers,

Bob

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:36:06 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:41:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol5/pp245-289
> >
> > does not agree that Isabel the wife of John St John was the widow of Paveley
> > Rather they call her, his daughter and heiress
> I
> I agree that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) says that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley and she married first John Paveley, Jr.. I tried to make a solid documented case in my last post to show that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" has made some serious mistakes in the early generations represented on the pedigree. If one agree with that, it makes other parts of the early generations of that pedigree suspect and not to be trust as correct with independent primary source confirming evidence.
>
> When you think about the claim that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley (who married Joan Stury) and she (Isabel) married John Paveley, Jr., it seems suspicious (i.e., a Paveley marrying a Paveley) That would mean that John Paveley, Jr., was the son of a different John Paveley (Sr.) other than the John Paveley, father of Isabel. When one looks for that second John Paveley who could be John Paveley, Jr's father other than the one who married Joan Stury he cannot be found.
>
> If you look at the 4th post in this this thread (my post), the evidence presented there supports the conclusion that John Paveley who was married to Joan Stury was the father of John Paveley, Jr., who married Isabel of an unknown surname. The most significant piece of evidence is that Joan (Stury's) Paveley's IPM in 1414 finds that Margery, the wife of John Bryan, a daughter of her sister Sybil, was her next heir (this corrects my misstatement of Joan (Stury) Paveley's heir as per the IPM that I made in the 4th post in this thread). If Isabel was Joan's child, the IPM would have found that she (Isabel) was Joan's (Stury's) Paveley's next heir, rather than the daughter of her sister.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob

Joan was evidently not the mother of the heir, but a second wife.
That would explain was her heir was not in this line

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:36:06 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:41:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol5/pp245-289
> > >
> > > does not agree that Isabel the wife of John St John was the widow of Paveley
> > > Rather they call her, his daughter and heiress
> > I
> > I agree that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) says that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley and she married first John Paveley, Jr.. I tried to make a solid documented case in my last post to show that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" has made some serious mistakes in the early generations represented on the pedigree. If one agree with that, it makes other parts of the early generations of that pedigree suspect and not to be trust as correct with independent primary source confirming evidence.
> >
> > When you think about the claim that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley (who married Joan Stury) and she (Isabel) married John Paveley, Jr., it seems suspicious (i.e., a Paveley marrying a Paveley) That would mean that John Paveley, Jr., was the son of a different John Paveley (Sr.) other than the John Paveley, father of Isabel. When one looks for that second John Paveley who could be John Paveley, Jr's father other than the one who married Joan Stury he cannot be found.
> >
> > If you look at the 4th post in this this thread (my post), the evidence presented there supports the conclusion that John Paveley who was married to Joan Stury was the father of John Paveley, Jr., who married Isabel of an unknown surname. The most significant piece of evidence is that Joan (Stury's) Paveley's IPM in 1414 finds that Margery, the wife of John Bryan, a daughter of her sister Sybil, was her next heir (this corrects my misstatement of Joan (Stury) Paveley's heir as per the IPM that I made in the 4th post in this thread). If Isabel was Joan's child, the IPM would have found that she (Isabel) was Joan's (Stury's) Paveley's next heir, rather than the daughter of her sister.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bob
> Joan was evidently not the mother of the heir, but a second wife.
> That would explain was her heir was not in this line

If you continue to trust the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" or if you are playing the "Devil's Advocate" it is natural that you would surmise that Joan was the second wife of John Paveley (Sr.) and isabel was the product of the 1st wife. There is no independent evidence I have found to support that John Paveley (Sr.) was married twice. I think what I have presented previously in this thread gives good cause to not trust the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" in the early generations. The untrustworthiness of the pedigree begins with the John St. John who allegedly married "Elizabeth", represented to be the parents of Oliver St. John who married Margaret Beauchamp. This is the generation where John St. John who married Isabel belongs, not as the parents of Oliver St. John who married Elizabeth de la Bere as represented in the pedigree. I discussed this in greater detail in my November 17th post.

The St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "the 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" is a secondary source. It is not really based on the notes of pedigree of the herald who conducted the 1556 Visitation of Bedfordsire. If you read the preface of "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) you will understand that the person who put this pedigree together in 1885 saw several pedigrees, none of which were the writings of the 1566 herald, and he chose the one which seemed to him to be the most complete or easiest to decipher as the baseline for the pedigree he prepared, making his own decisions on how to resolve conflicts with other pedigrees that were not so complete or legible.

Where is some independent primary source evidence that John Paveley (Sr.) was married previous to the time he married Joan Stury?

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:53:37 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:36:06 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:41:50 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > > https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol5/pp245-289
> > > >
> > > > does not agree that Isabel the wife of John St John was the widow of Paveley
> > > > Rather they call her, his daughter and heiress
> > > I
> > > I agree that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) says that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley and she married first John Paveley, Jr.. I tried to make a solid documented case in my last post to show that the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" has made some serious mistakes in the early generations represented on the pedigree. If one agree with that, it makes other parts of the early generations of that pedigree suspect and not to be trust as correct with independent primary source confirming evidence.
> > >
> > > When you think about the claim that Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley (who married Joan Stury) and she (Isabel) married John Paveley, Jr., it seems suspicious (i.e., a Paveley marrying a Paveley) That would mean that John Paveley, Jr., was the son of a different John Paveley (Sr.) other than the John Paveley, father of Isabel. When one looks for that second John Paveley who could be John Paveley, Jr's father other than the one who married Joan Stury he cannot be found.
> > >
> > > If you look at the 4th post in this this thread (my post), the evidence presented there supports the conclusion that John Paveley who was married to Joan Stury was the father of John Paveley, Jr., who married Isabel of an unknown surname. The most significant piece of evidence is that Joan (Stury's) Paveley's IPM in 1414 finds that Margery, the wife of John Bryan, a daughter of her sister Sybil, was her next heir (this corrects my misstatement of Joan (Stury) Paveley's heir as per the IPM that I made in the 4th post in this thread). If Isabel was Joan's child, the IPM would have found that she (Isabel) was Joan's (Stury's) Paveley's next heir, rather than the daughter of her sister.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Bob
> > Joan was evidently not the mother of the heir, but a second wife.
> > That would explain was her heir was not in this line
> If you continue to trust the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" or if you are playing the "Devil's Advocate" it is natural that you would surmise that Joan was the second wife of John Paveley (Sr.) and isabel was the product of the 1st wife. There is no independent evidence I have found to support that John Paveley (Sr.) was married twice. I think what I have presented previously in this thread gives good cause to not trust the St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" in the early generations. The untrustworthiness of the pedigree begins with the John St. John who allegedly married "Elizabeth", represented to be the parents of Oliver St. John who married Margaret Beauchamp. This is the generation where John St. John who married Isabel belongs, not as the parents of Oliver St. John who married Elizabeth de la Bere as represented in the pedigree. I discussed this in greater detail in my November 17th post.
>
> The St. John of Bletsoe pedigree in "the 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" is a secondary source. It is not really based on the notes of pedigree of the herald who conducted the 1556 Visitation of Bedfordsire. If you read the preface of "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire" (Harleian Society; 1885) you will understand that the person who put this pedigree together in 1885 saw several pedigrees, none of which were the writings of the 1566 herald, and he chose the one which seemed to him to be the most complete or easiest to decipher as the baseline for the pedigree he prepared, making his own decisions on how to resolve conflicts with other pedigrees that were not so complete or legible.
>
> Where is some independent primary source evidence that John Paveley (Sr.) was married previous to the time he married Joan Stury?

You're setting up a strawman to knock down.
I did not refer to the Visitation.

The BHO link I cited specifically refers to Joan's IPM, and how the land passed to John's heir.
They do not claim there that Joan was the mother, and in fact the wording used "John's widow" instead of "isabel's mother" would suggest the very situation I stated.

Joan as the mother of Isabel would not have to "demise" part of her holdings to Isabel, also the advowson passed to Isabel while Joan was yet living.

They use a curious wording that Joan had a "life interest" instead of claiming that she had "dower rights". That could just be picky on my part, but the way these lands passed iimplies to me that Isabel was the heiress, or at least the wife of the heir, and that Joan was not the mother of the heir(ess).

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 10:06:05 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
>
> Wikipedia has an article on Walter de Claville, a Norman magnate and one of the 52 Domesday Book tenants-in-chief of King William the Conqueror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_de_Claville Among the 32 separate entries in the Domesday Book and the Red Book of the Exchequer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_of_the_Exchequer for Walter de Claville was the fee of Instow, in the parish of Instow granted to him for the Honour of Gloucester stating the mesne tenant was John de Sancto Johanne.

I need to correct/supplement the above paragraph from my May 27, 2023, posting.

The manor of Instow in Devon was listed in the Domesday Book as 1 of the manors owned by Walter de Claville, tenant-in-chief, in 1086. https://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=41284# and https://opendomesday.org/name/walter-of-claville/ However, there was no mention of John St. John or anybody being a sub-tenant in this 1086 record.

In the Book of Fees for Devon in 1242-1243 there is an entry showing the tenant of “Jonestowe” (Instow) was Johannes de Sancto Johanne https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/581044/?offset=0#page=150&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q=

It does not change the point I am making. This John St. John who was sub-tenant of Instow in 1242-1243 is presumed to have been an adult at the time, at least 21 years of age. That would make him born by 1222. He would be a contemporary of Robert (de Port ) St. John, father of William (de Port) St. John of Fonmon, Glamorgan Wales. The manor of Instow, descended down this John St. John's line to a John St. John was tenant to a ¼ part of the manor of Instow in 1303. He was known as Lord of the manor of Instow in 1316 of the honor of Gloucester. This John St. John, 1st Baron of St. John of Lageham and Instow, died on June 27, 1316. His IPM (British National Archives C134/52/10) is abstracted in English at British History Online. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol5/pp413-418 (scroll down to it 625) In 1336-1337 his presumed son, Alexander St. John was listed as a Patron of the Church of Instow. In 1346 Oliver de St. John, presumed son of Alexander St. John owned a ¼ part of the manor of Instow. Also in 1346 Beatrix de Sancto John was mentioned as a Patron of Inslow.

There is no place to fit this John St. John, subtenant of Instow in 1242-1243 into the (de Port) St. John of Fonmon, family tree between Adam de Port and William St. John of Fonmon (top of the pedigree of the St. John family of Bletsoe in "The 1566 Visitation of Bedfordshire").

Cheers,

Bob Allen

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 10:59:21 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> You're setting up a strawman to knock down.
> I did not refer to the Visitation.
>
> The BHO link I cited specifically refers to Joan's IPM, and how the land passed to John's heir.
> They do not claim there that Joan was the mother, and in fact the wording used "John's widow" instead of "isabel's mother" would suggest the very situation I stated.
>
> Joan as the mother of Isabel would not have to "demise" part of her holdings to Isabel, also the advowson passed to Isabel while Joan was yet living..
>
> They use a curious wording that Joan had a "life interest" instead of claiming that she had "dower rights". That could just be picky on my part, but the way these lands passed iimplies to me that Isabel was the heiress, or at least the wife of the heir, and that Joan was not the mother of the heir(ess).

The Paveley family on pages 111-112 in East Anglia’s History, Studies in Honour of Norman Scarfe, edited by Harper-Bill, Carole Rawcliffe and Wilson (2002). It is at JSTOR website https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt163tbrr , but you need a subscription at JSTOR to read it unless you can long in through your local library. It states that John Paveley, Jr., was a King’s knight to Richard II, who died as a young man in 1393 after his father (actually it was 1392, before his father – see below). It states that in 1387 he had married Isabel at the command of the King (see record cited below). It states that it is virtually certain that Sir John Paveley, Jr.’s father was Sir John Paveley the elder, three times sheriff of Northamptonshire between 1379 and 1390. Sir John Paveley, Sr., died between June and October 1393. Supporting references are cited in footnotes 18, 19 and 20. Footnote 18 contain an English translation of excerpts from John Paveley, Jr.’s Will. So, I am not alone in my opinion that John Paveley, Jr., not his wife Isabel, was a child of John Paveley, Sr. (“the elder”) who died between June and October 1393.

John Paveley, Jr.’s Will was probated in the PCC on January 7, 1393 (PRO PROB 11/1/60) https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7619473 (mis-catalogued under the surname Paneley). It is written in Latin. I think the date it was written is there in Latin, but I cannot decipher it. The relevant translated excerpts of this Will in footnote 18 of the above-mentioned article are follows: “He made his will . . . at Dover on Thursday in the feast of St. Andrew 13 [blank]; it was proved at St. Paul’s cathedral on 7 January 1393 viz. 1394. He was to be buried where God willed he left most of his goods, including “uno magno Nowche quod est in custodia Ricardi Stury’, to his wife, but a gold cup given him by the earl of Nottingham he left to his father and another given him by Richard II he left to his mother. . . . His wife, Isabel, John Warwick and his ‘dear friend’ Richard Stury were to be his executors.”

Regarding the death date of John Paveley, Jr., this is established to have occurred overseas in 1392, probably in battle fighting for the king, in an account of his death on page 510-511 of The Westminister Chronicle 1391-1394. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Westminster_Chronicle_1381_1394/U3ZnAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bshm=nce/1&bsq=Johannes%20Paule (in Latin) and https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Westminster_Chronicle_1381_1394/U3ZnAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=John%20Paveley&bshm=nce/1 Unfortunately, only excepts are available at this links. The date 1392 is at the top of page 510 and 510 which applied to the matter in the excerpts. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Westminster_Chronicle_1381_1394/U3ZnAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Dominus%20vespares&bshm=nce/1 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Westminster_Chronicle_1381_1394/U3ZnAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=choir%20Vespers&bshm=nce/1

Joan (Stury) Paveley’s IPM was conducted in 1414. There are 3 documents at the PRO (C 138/5, no.55, E 136/148, no 1 and E 149, no. 17). Here is what we learn from this IPM. Sometime prior to his death (which occurred by October 1394) John Paveley (the elder) put his manor of Paulerspury into a trust for the benefit of his wife, Joan, her life, the full terms of which are not specified. It seems to say that at that time Isabel was “then the wife of John Paveley junior”. This suggests that the trust deed was granted prior to John Paveley (the younger’s) death in 1392. On February 8, 1395, the trustees deeded Paulerspury to Joan, widow of John Paveley (the elder) for her lifetime and for one year more with the REMAINDER back to themselves. The REVERSION they granted to Isabel. Isabel remarried to John St. John (between August 18, 1394 and June 16, 1395). In 1403, Joan (Stury) Paveley, widow, attorned to Isabel, wife of John St. John with some exceptions, providing that after her death that John St.. John and Isabel and their heirs and assigns could enter the manor as of ancient right. John and Isabel were then still alive. Isabel was age 40. Joan died on February 1, 1414. Margery, the daughter of her sister, Sybil, age 30, was her heir. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d01174085g&view=1up&seq=64 and https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol20/pp30-49 (scroll down to #127)

Nowhere in the IPM or in any of the other documents I have cited and mentioned above or in previous posts on this thread does is describe Isabel as the “daughter” or “heir” of John Paveley (the elder). There are no records in support a hypothetical previous wife of John Paveley (the elder) prior to his marrying Joan Stury. Isabel was not John (Stury) Paveley’s heir meaning she was not Joan’s daughter. If John Paveley (the elder was not previously married then Isabel cannot be his daughter. In addition, the use of the word “reversion”, rather than “remainder” for Isabel’s interest is also instructive. If Isabel was John Paveley’s , the elder’s, daughter, it seems that her interest would have described as a “remainder” interest after Joan’s death, not a “reversion” interest.

The finding of Joan (Stury) Paveley’s IPM are reiterated in an October 15, 1414 Calendar of Close Roll entry. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011275834&view=1up&seq=146 The interesting thing to note in this record that is the manor of Paulerspury is referred to at the manor of “Westpirye”.

There is a June 13, 1395, Feet of Fine record (PRO CP 25/1/178/89, No. 164 between John Bouer (or Boner) and Robert Walssh querents and John Seint Johan, knight, and Isabel, his wife, deforciants involving the manor of Westperye. It says that Joan, who was the wife of John Paulye “the elder”, knight, holds the manor for life. The agreement reached was that upon the death of Joan the manor “ought to revert” to John Bouer and Robert Walssh and the heirs of John, but as a result of the agreement after the decease of John the manor shall remain to John Seint Johan and Isabel and their heirs of their body, to hold of the chief lords forever. In default of such heirs,, successive remainders (1) to the heirs of the body of Isabel, (2) to the heirs of the body of John Seint John (3) to Walter Hulle for his life, and after his deceased to John Wode for his life, and after his deceased to the right heirs of Isabel. http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_178_89.shtml#164 (scroll down to #164)

This June 13, 1395, Feet of Fines record seems to be determinative of the issue. After Joan (Stury) Paveley’s death, the manor of Westperye/Paulerspury ought to “revert” to John Bouer (or Boner) and Robert Walssh, not of Isabel, the assumption being that John Bouer (or Boner) and Robert Walssh, were the next of kin of John Paveley, the elder (not Isabel). But the agreement reached was that upon the death of Joan that the manor would remain to John Seint Johan and Isabel and their heirs of their body, to hold of the chief lords forever. If Isabel was the daughter of John Paveley, Sr., she would have almost certain have had the remainder interest in Paulerspury/Westpurye after Joan’s death, but instead the right of reversion was with John Bourer and Robert Walssh.

The English Julian calendar in 1395 ran from March 25, 1395 to March 24, 1395. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm#beginning So, the June 13, 1395 Feet of Fines settlement agreement occurred before the February 8, 1395 trustees deed to Isabel and John St. John.

What appears to have happened is that John Paveley, Sr., wrote his trust deed while his son was still living. That is why Joan’s IPM said “then the wife of John Paveley, Jr.”. That trust deed probably did not provide for Isabel to inherit if John Paveley, Jr., died without heirs. Instead, John Bouer and Robert Waalsh were to inherit, probably as co-collateral heirs of John Paveley, Sr. However, due to the June 13, 1395 Feet of Fines Agreement, Isabel became the one to inherit. Later that year (1395), on February 8, 1395, the trustees deeded Paulerspury/Westpurye to Joan for life and the reversion they granted to Isabel (and her then husband, John St. John) as per the Feet of Fines Agreement. I think it is highly doubtful that John Paveley’s trust deed itself provided for Isabel