On Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 11:03:45 PM UTC-7, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> One further anomaly has occurred to me, based on a chronology of the
> Wiverton line.
> 1. Agnes Neville ff 1291 married John Deincourt died 1257
> 2. Roberta Deincourt, born no later than 1258, marr. Roger le Breton
> 3. John le Breton married 1318 Alice Loudham nee de Kirketon
> 4. Catherine le Breton married John Caltofte
> 5. Alice Caltofte born circa 1343
> cf
> 1. Roger le Breton, dead by 1314; married by 1280 Sarah [?Bottlisford]
> born circa 1252, survived her husband
> 2. Roger le Breton living 1313, his father's heir
> How then could Roger le Breton, husband of Roberta Deincourt, and John
> their son fit into the Wiverton stemma? Chronology would suggest that
> he could not be the son of Roger and Sarah above, unless his wife were
> some years his senior?

I know this is really old, but I have some information that casts some of this in doubt.

John Deincourt and Neville had

Edmund Deincourt, Lord, who had application in 1314 concerning this nephew Edmund, son of John, (Edmund the uncle's brother), who had a daughter Isabel who died after 1325 and before 1327. Edmund Deincourt the Uncle, in 1325 granted William FitzWilliam, the Manor of Plumtree als Plumtree, which was a grant to him and the heirs named, which included Joan and Isabel. Edmund the Nephew's wife was that said Joan, and Isabel was her daughter with Edmund the Nephew.

Isabel was in fact the granddaughter of William FitzWilliam and his wife Dame Isabel who died 1346.

This mess all started when the translation from Latin to English conflated the Edmund's. Steve Hunt was nice enough to send me a copy of the latin, and it says

"Isabel the daughter and heir apparent of Edmund". The English version May 5 1317 says "Isabel HIS daughter and heir apparent". The reason this is significant, i that the application was sought by Edmund the Uncle, who died 1327, not the Edmund( father of Isabel) who had died 1313. So all along people thought Isabel was the wife of William FitzWilliam and that Edmund was one person only.

So 1. John Deincourt married Agnes De Neville
2.a Edmund Deincourt, Lord
2.b John Deincourt, died before 1313

2.b John Deincourt died before 1313 (wife Joanna de Annesley? I cannot find a source)

3.a Roberta Deincourt married Lebrett
3.b Margaret Deincourt d 1333, co-executor of 2 a Edmund's will
3.c Edmund Deincourt who married Joan FitzWilliam of William FitzWilliam and Dame Isabella

3.c Edmund Deincourt who died before 1314

4.a Isabella Deincourt who died aft 1325 befor 1327, dsp

and from that Point, the FitzWilliam family had Plumtree and they were also of Elmeley. the son William I believe known as William De Emley.

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 12:35:58 PM UTC-8, Betty Gorrie wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 11:03:45 PM UTC-7, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > One further anomaly has occurred to me, based on a chronology of the
> > Wiverton line.
> > 1. Agnes Neville ff 1291 married John Deincourt died 1257
> > 2. Roberta Deincourt, born no later than 1258, marr. Roger le Breton
> > 3. John le Breton married 1318 Alice Loudham nee de Kirketon
> > 4. Catherine le Breton married John Caltofte
> > 5. Alice Caltofte born circa 1343
> > cf
> > 1. Roger le Breton, dead by 1314; married by 1280 Sarah [?Bottlisford]
> > born circa 1252, survived her husband
> > 2. Roger le Breton living 1313, his father's heir
> > How then could Roger le Breton, husband of Roberta Deincourt, and John
> > their son fit into the Wiverton stemma? Chronology would suggest that
> > he could not be the son of Roger and Sarah above, unless his wife were
> > some years his senior?
> I know this is really old, but I have some information that casts some of this in doubt.
>
> John Deincourt and Neville had
>
> Edmund Deincourt, Lord, who had application in 1314 concerning this nephew Edmund, son of John, (Edmund the uncle's brother), who had a daughter Isabel who died after 1325 and before 1327. Edmund Deincourt the Uncle, in 1325 granted William FitzWilliam, the Manor of Plumtree als Plumtree, which was a grant to him and the heirs named, which included Joan and Isabel. Edmund the Nephew's wife was that said Joan, and Isabel was her daughter with Edmund the Nephew.
>
> Isabel was in fact the granddaughter of William FitzWilliam and his wife Dame Isabel who died 1346.
>
> This mess all started when the translation from Latin to English conflated the Edmund's. Steve Hunt was nice enough to send me a copy of the latin, and it says
>
> "Isabel the daughter and heir apparent of Edmund". The English version May 5 1317 says "Isabel HIS daughter and heir apparent". The reason this is significant, i that the application was sought by Edmund the Uncle, who died 1327, not the Edmund( father of Isabel) who had died 1313. So all along people thought Isabel was the wife of William FitzWilliam and that Edmund was one person only.
>
> So 1. John Deincourt married Agnes De Neville
> 2.a Edmund Deincourt, Lord
> 2.b John Deincourt, died before 1313
>
> 2.b John Deincourt died before 1313 (wife Joanna de Annesley? I cannot find a source)
>
> 3.a Roberta Deincourt married Lebrett
> 3.b Margaret Deincourt d 1333, co-executor of 2 a Edmund's will
> 3.c Edmund Deincourt who married Joan FitzWilliam of William FitzWilliam and Dame Isabella
>
> 3.c Edmund Deincourt who died before 1314
>
> 4.a Isabella Deincourt who died aft 1325 befor 1327, dsp
>
> and from that Point, the FitzWilliam family had Plumtree and they were also of Elmeley. the son William I believe known as William De Emley.

The source for Joanna de Annesley and John Deincourt, the father of Roberta Deincourt who married Le Brett is Thoroton volume 1 History of Notts, Pedigree at page 198. The pedigree connection is incorrect date wise as John the father's parents according to FMG were married (John and Agnes Neville) c 1251. John Annesley who married Annora (the daughter of Sir Robert Pierpoint and Anna Manners) was likely born 1260 was perhaps the brother of this Joanna.

Thoroton places this Joanna as the daughter of the son of John c 1250. I just have too much background on the Deincourts at this point to contemplate changes in dates to 2 generations. But if anyone has further info, I will always listen.