Hi Dick, Thanks for your inspection and your questions. If you see anything else that looks quirky, lets fix it! Answers below. __________ Dick Dutton wrote: > > Hi Carole, > > That is a really neat page! With the idea of helping you make the data as > perfect as possible I have a couple of questions. > > 1. Lawrence Dutton XVII - which reads in part "writ of livery 13 Nov 1503 > at the age of 27 when Anna (wife of Thomas) died; thus Laurence b. 1436. > (DKR 37:245)" Should that not read "thus Laurence b. 1476"??? Notice also > the two spellings of Lawrence/Laurence. Yes, you are correct! That date should be 1476. I will fix it. I am glad I wrote my reasoning down--it helps to catch errors that way. In Laurence's lifetime the spelling was sometimes with a "w" and sometimes with a "u". The previous Laurence (XI) was always with a "u." > > 2. I'm just curious why Hugh Dutton, son and heir of Sir Piers (XVIII), > (DKR 39:105) was not Lord of Dutton XIX??? Could he have died (was killed) > while his father still lived but after he sired his son John? But by > definition that would mean he could not be the heir. I'm confused. This is a good question and it IS CONFUSING! Look on our chart! Sir Piers (XVIII; 18) died and his eldest sons (Peter, dsp) and next eldest (Hugh) both died before Piers died. They are not in the DKR. John, son of Hugh, sued Ralph Dutton, younger son of Piers, for the inheritance. John, the plaintiff, and Ralph, the defendant. The proof of evidence was inspected and Ralph is in the DKR only in one more entry after this litigation, so, he lost, and John won. As I understand, the eldest son of the eldest living son, is the person who inherits, and that would be John not Ralph. People who do not own property are not in the DKR. If anyone can add more info to the inheritance laws in England, that would be great! > > 3. I have several MOLYNEUX of Sefton in my records but all of them are > spelled without the "a" (Molyneaux) that you show for the father of John > XV's wife. I realize spellings for that time period were, at best, > approximations and I have no idea which, if either, might be considered > correct - maybe both? I don't know either, because at this time period spelling seems more like an art form!! I have seen Molyneux as Molineux, Molyneaux. I have seen Mascy, Massey, Massy, Masey. Also, Mainwaring, Maynwarying, Maynwaryng. Leycester, Leycestre, Laycester. Minshull, Mynshull, Munshull. Warburton, Werburton (mostly). Dutton, Duddon. Booth, Bothe. They recently had a huge fight on the GEN-MED about names--nobody won. The spelling may change within a document and from one document to the next! Should we go with modern spellings or ancient spellings? I will TRY to use the spellings in the document that I am quoting. __________(snip)__________ > > Dick > > http://genealogy.dutton.net/gen_perspect/Dutton_Pedigree.htm carole