On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:24:26 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > As far as I can see, all sources which claim Mathew as the father of > Hawise are taking the same document and presuming that the father must > be the overlord of Wix, ignoring the possibility that the family had > enfeoffed a cadet branch which evidently was expected to inherit. This has always been sort of a pet peeve of mine - it is all too common to see genealogical connections made based solely on the holding of land, under the supposition that it must have been directly inherited. With trusts, fines, leases and enfeoffments, this simply cannot be assumed. That these frequently involve relatives of the primary landholder makes it all the harder to sort out. > Am I missing anything or should standard pedigrees be corrected or at > least considered uncertain? Are there any other documents relevant to > the case? I wish I could help, but I find nothing useful. taf