Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 139–140 (sub De La Warr) has a good account of Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord la Warre, who died in 1320. Regarding his parentage, the following information is provided: "Sir Roger la Warre ... son and heir of Sir John la Warre (living 27 May 1277), of Wickwar [co. Gloucester] and Brislington [Somerset], by Olimpia, daughter of Sir Hugh de Fokinton, of Folkington, Isfield, etc." END OF QUOTE. On page 140, footnote a, the following information is given regarding Sir Roger la Warre's mother Olimpia de Folkington: "Olimpia was married before 20 Jan. 1242/3, and was living in August 1265. Her father, Hugh (whose widow, Margaret, married William Englefield, and was living in April 1252), was son and heir of Hugh de Fokinton, of Folkington, Isfield, Tarring, Exceat, and Cholington, who died before 1 June 1214, leaving a widow, Egeline. (Feet of Fines, case 233, file 5, no. 23, file 15, no. 7; case 234, file 18, no. 12: Assize Roll, no 237, m. 6 or 7). The elder Hugh, proavus of Roger la Warre kt., gave one-third of the advowson of Tarring to the monks of Lewes (Ancient Deeds, A, no. 13131). Cf. Cartulary of Lewes, Cotton MSS., Vesp., F 15, ff. 65, 70 v, 79 v." END OF QUOTE. The Folkington pedigree seems pretty straight foward and well documented. VCH Sussex 7 (1940): 223-227 follows the Complete Peerage version of the Folkington family. However, both sources are wrong. The historian Noel Denholm-Young in his book, Seignorial Administration in England, published in 1963, gives a different Folkington pedigree. On page 178, he gives the following descent: 1. Hugh de Folkington (1) = Constance = (2) Roger 2. Hugh, kt. [He had two sons, Geoffrey and Hugh]. 3. Geoffrey 4. Olimpia = John la Ware 5. Roger, first Lord Delaware = Clarice The above pedigree may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=3LuURx_QBbwC&pg=PA178 Mr. Denholm-Young gives the following documentation for this pedigree: "This portion of the Delaware tree, not known to Farrer (Fees, iii. 354), is derived from A.R. 233, m. 6d. In the case there found against John and Olimpia his wife (in 1256) for land of her inheritance, as she asserted, in Leaden Roding, of the Warenne fee in Essex, this pedigree was produced." END OF QUOTE. We see that Complete Peerage cited as its source, Assize Roll, no 237, m. 6 or 7, whereas Denholm-Young has cited Assize Roll 233, m. 6d. Which is correct? So far I haven't been able to find either of the Assize documents, but it would seem that Denholm-Young is more likely correct as he appear to quote the exact pedigree found in his document. Be that as it may, elsewhere I've managed to locate a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Hilary term 1283 in which Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord la Warre, set forth his own pedigree going back to his 3rd great-grandmother named Levene, sister of a certain Maud, of Norfolk, living in the reign of King John. Here is the arrangement of Folkington pedigree from that record, with an attendant list of successive heirs. Material is brackets has been added by me for clarification. l. Maud, lady of Heye Weasenham and Ingham, Norfolk temp. King John. Her heir was her son: 2. Richard, who died without issue. His heir was his brother: 3. Ralph, who died without issue. His heir was his brother: 4. William, who died without issue. His heir was his aunt: 5. Levene. Her heir was her son and heir, Hugh [de Folkington]. 6. Hugh [de Folkington]. His heir was his son and heir, Hugh. 7. Hugh [de Folington]. His heir was his son and heir, Geoffrey. 8. Geoffrey [de Folkington]. His heir was his son and heir, Ralph. 9. Ralph [de Folkington]. He died without issue. His heir was his sister, Olimpia. 10. Olimpia [de Folkington, wife of John la Warre]. Her successive heirs were her six sons, Jordan, John, Ralph, James, Laurence, and Roger [la Warre]. The above lawsuit dated 1283 is in complete agreement with pedigree in the Assize Roll document cited by Mr. Denholm-Young. As such, it would appear that Mr. Denholm-Young's pedigree is correct. The 1283 lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no48/CP40no48afr/IMG_6912.htm I note that Blomefield, Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, Volume 10 (1809): 75-81 adds the following information regarding Sir Roger la Warre: "Roger de la Ware impleaded several persons in the 10th of Edward I. [1281-2] for lands in Hey Wesenham, Rugham Magna and Parva, and Fransham, as his right, whereof his ancestors were seized in the time of King John, and before this, in the 3d of the said reign, when a Quo Warranto was issued out, the lord of this manor claimed assise, &c." In summary, it appears from the 1283 Common Pleas lawsuit and the pedigree provided by Mr. Denholm-Young from an Assize Roll that Olimpia, the mother of Sir Roger la Warre, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Folkington (not Hugh) and that she was the sister and heiress of Ralph de Folkington. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord Warre [died 1320], and his wife, Clarice de Tregoz: Frances Baldwin, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, Thomas Bressey, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Francis Dade, Anne Humphrey, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Simon Lynde, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, John West. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah