There are extant two contradictory accounts of Margaret Englefield, daughter of (Sir) Thomas Englefield of Englefield, Berkshire, the Speaker of the House of Commons, who died in 1514. Accounts of the of the Blake family of Calne in Wiltshire and of the kindred Baynard family state that she married Robert Blake of Calne who died 11 December 1515. Accounts of the Lingon family state that she married about 1530 John Lingen of the Herefordshire family. Ordinarily when I encounter ambivalent accounts like those treating Margaret Englefield's marriages, their proponents seem to be aware of the divergences, squabbling on the Gen-Medieval list, fighting it out in footnotes, or carefully working through the sources, but there seems to be little cross-pollination on this particular problem. 1) Blake accounts The ultimate source for the Blake accounts appears to be the 1565 visitation of Wiltshire: “Robert Blaake of Cawne in the said co., third son and heir of Robert, mar. Margerett, da. of Sir Thomas Englefeild of Englefeild, co. Berks....” By the looks of it, one of Margaret’s grandsons made the report to the herald. [link: https://archive.org/stream/visitationofwilt00harvrich#page/6/mode/2up] Plantagenet Ancestry (2011) I: 187 follows this version and states that Margaret Englefield, wife of Robert Blake, was the daughter of Sir Thomas Englefield, knight, of Englefield, Berkshire. 2) Lingon accounts The ultimate source for the Lingon accounts appears to be the visitation of Berkshire in 1665-1666, a pedigree reported to the herald by Henry Englefield 20 March 1664/5, identifying Margaret daughter of Sir Thomas Englefield as the wife of John Lyngen esquire, and naming their children John, William, Thomas, Walter, Eleanor wife of Nicholas Walwen, and Anne wife of John Gower. [link: https://archive.org/stream/fourvisitations00britgoog#page/n140/mode/2up] F. N. Macnamara, Memorials of the Danvers family (London, 1895): 140, follows this pedigree. [link: https://archive.org/stream/memorialsofdanve00macn#page/140/mode/2up] As does Burke’s History of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, two volumes (London, 1898) I: 207. [link: https://books.google.com/books?id=YUtNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=%22john+lingen%22+%22sutton%22&source=bl&ots=cS06aCFt5d&sig=cc4eMTj4BDqed-vanrXwLy7-R0k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp0LLDs8vMAhVKXh4KHeOsCbEQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=%22john%20lingen%22%20%22sutton%22&f=false] As does David Nash Ford’s Royal Berkshire History website. [link: http://www.berkshirehistory.com/gentry/database/pedigree2.htm#2.INDI107.37.FAM79.37.INDI107.37.4322.0] 3) Margaret herself/themselves. The will of Sir Thomas Englefield, [PROB 11/17/532], dated 4 March 1513/4; proved 24 April 1514, names daughter Elizabeth White, daughter [Joan] Leynham, daughter [Eleanor] Tropnell, daughter Joyce Englefield, bethrothed but not yet married to the son and heir of Sir Symond Herdco[ne]t, and Elizabeth Englefield, daughter of his second wife Mary, who must have been under the age of five or so. He does not mention his daughter Margaret, but his will spends much more time on obsequies than on legacies. Margaret, wife of Robert Blake, had at least two children. Her son Roger Blake was named in the will of his uncle John Blake [PROB 11/14/117], dated 24 February 1503/4, proved 24 April 1504, so, were Roger born in 1504 and Margaret age 17 or so, she would have been born at the latest in 1587. According to a series of IPMs of the Baynard family, Margaret’s daughter Anne Blake must have married Philip Baynard by 1512 or so. Again, if we assume Anne’s age as 17 at marriage and Margaret’s age as 17 when Anne was born, Margaret’s own birthdate is pushed back a few years at the latest to 1578. A woman born in 1587, let alone 1578, is unlikely to have been bearing at least five children from 1530 onward. It thus appears like that Margaret wife of Robert Blake and Margaret wife of John Lingen were two different women. If the 1664/5 is accurate in its identification, chronology would more likely make Margaret wife of John Lingen the daughter of the Speaker’s son Thomas who died in 1537, but the younger Thomas’ will dated 18 July 1537I, makes no mention of a daughter Margaret. [link: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-27_f_80.pdf] 4) Weighing evidence. So far as I can tell, except for the pedigrees, no documentary evidence tying either of these women to Sir Thomas Englefield has yet surfaced. The 1565 source of the Blake account is a century older than the 1664 pedigree of the Lingen account. The Blake grandsons most likely knew the identity of their grandmother; were they tempted to falsify the record, which certainly happened in the visitations, their neighborhood most likely knew the truth of it. At first it seemed to me that Sir Thomas Englefield enjoyed a markedly higher standing than the Blake family; on second thought he was responsible himself for much of his social ascent and may well have been much closer socially to the Blake family as a young man. His wife Margery Danvers had Wiltshire connections. Later Blake and Baynard wills do not name Englefield cousins. Since the Englefields would have been useful cousins to cultivate, their absence from these wills might be tacit proof that there was no close relation. That said, these wills keep legacies close to home. The 1664/5 source is 130 years distant from the family it described; its detail in naming the children also suggests family memory or family archives of some sort. The pedigree is extensive. It does omit several of the daughters named in Thomas Englefield’s 1514 will, so the pedigree was selective. Happy to know about documents that might sort these people out. A cursory search of the National Archives catalogue has turned up nothing. Scott Swanson sswanson@butler.edu