On 14/05/16 00:49, Peter Stewart via wrote: > In this case, for instance, the order might have stated (with > contraction marks) "fil ei" for filius eius, meaning that Thomas was the > son of William, which was logically understood as "fil eor" meaning > filius eorum because he came after both William and Joan. > > But for most purposes, without independent evidence, there is little > value in splitting hypothetical hairs. Thank you for a most informative response. It's "well known" that Sir Thomas Echyngham was the son of Joan Arundel, and there are a number of gateway descents that rely on this. I don't seriously doubt this, but I wanted to take a fresh look at the evidence supporting this for two reasons. First, following the source citations in many of the standard secondary sources, it seems that much reliance has been placed on the 1633-4 visitation of Sussex (over two centuries after the marriage, and which contains other mistakes in this family's genealogy) and/or other unspecified records of the College of Arms. Secondly, while there's clear evidence that Thomas's mother was called Joan, Nigel Saul suggests in /Scenes from Provincial Life/ that Sir William had two wives called Joan. Richard