On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 8:43:26 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066038720;view=1up;seq=198 There are a couple of things here I would take issue with. First, he says of William Spernore/Durvassal that he is "reasonably thought to have been an illegitimate son of John Durvassal", and later "Spernore came into the possession of the bastard son, William". I kept expecting an explanation for this reasonable thought, but none came. We now know that William came into possession via a grant, jointly, to Joyce, widow of John, and to William, that William then held it for life. He later says that Rose, widow of Nicholas sued William for possession, "but without success, for William remained in possession until his death." Without success is all relative, because they agreed that William would only hold it for life and then it would revert to the right heirs of John and Joyce, Rose's, daughters (and eventually, her grandson). It was only after he died s.p. that it went back to William's children. In other words, Rose won, just not right away. It is hard to judge without seeing the agreement in question, but the inheritance by William's daughters could only have come one of two ways - first, that they were right heirs of John and Joyce and hence Walter's natural heirs to the property, or second, that the original grant left reversion, first to the issue of John and Joyce, then to William and his right heirs. I have yet to see anyone comment that the latter was the case, but without seeing the accord, we can't be certain. If the first of these was the case, William must have been legitimate, if the latter, he was illegitimate (else as right heir he would not have needed a special reversion), which again has me wondering what the 'reasonable thought' is. taf