On Friday, 13 May 2016 11:36:54 UTC+1, Robert Spencer wrote: > Dear John , can you please confirm what it says in the other sources listed by Ravillous included the Farrer [9] and the Pipe Roll of 22 Hen II, reference and post back your findings, much appreciated. > > I apparently got the source mixed up. Ravillous conjectured that Thomas Despenser was cousin to Hugh de Berc (Berges) by confusing the Ansketil de Berges who he conjectured to be Anschetil Despenser at the time, who were in hindsight over 100 years apart and could not be the same person. > > My info is in error based on the summary of the family by John Ravillous in 2006, where he informs us that Thomas Despenser and Hugh were cousins: > > Excerpt form post by John Ravillios (2006) > > "amerced 40s. in 1176 for forest trespass in Leicestershire, as > noted by Farrer [9]. The record in the Pipe Roll of 22 Hen II > identifies both Thomas le Despenser and his cousin, Hugh de Berges: > > " De misericordia Regis pro foresta sua. In Legercestrescr'. > Tomas dispensator redd. comp. de .xl. s. de misericordia > pro foresta. In thesauro .xx. s. Et debet .xx. s. > .... > Hugo de Berc [Berch in C.R.] debet dimidiam marcam pro > eodem. Sed requirendus est in Rotel'. " [19] > > I now find both men appear here: on page # 185 > > https://ia600307.us.archive.org/32/items/publicationsofpi25pipe_0/publicationsofpi25pipe_0.pdf > > De misericordia Regis pro foresta sua. In Legercestrescr'. > > Tomas dispensator redd. comp. de .xl. s. de misericordia pro foresta. > In thesauro .xx. 5. Et debet .xx. s. > > Hugo de Berc 1 debet dimidiam marcam pro eodem. Sed requirendus > est in Rotel'. Berch\ C.R. > > Thanks > > Robert Dear Robert, All this record says, is that in 1175-6, Thomas Despenser was fined for a forest offence in Leicestershire and Hugh de Berghes was fined for a similar offence in Rutland. It does not make them cousins. Regards, John