Thank you Peter for that very interesting lesson and the sources. Would your line of thnking be altered reflect the fact that one the Hugh Desepnser's did name Alan de Elsfield as his "kin". Would he have called all his knights or vassals kin or just those for which he had a close affinity towards. I find it interesting to see that a " Hugh,son of William", provided land to St. Frideswide from Elsfield land early on. In addition we know that Hugh Despenser I who died in 1238 had a son William, of which we know very little. In addition this same Hugh I had a brother William who married Juliana, but must have died with out issue as his nephew Hugh Despenser II, was his heir. In Elsfield there is family of (Hugh's I,II and III) with dealings with this area. The Plessis family. The "Hugh son of William" can not be Hugh de Plessis I, based on the pedigrees I have seen for that family unless they are in error. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Robert Spencer