On 24/08/17 14:17, Douglas Richardson wrote: > I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants > died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were > several branches of the Swynford family in England. Has any research been published into the Swynford family in mediæval times? Looking in the modern secondary sources readily accessible, I can't even find any information about who Hugh's parents were, though that's a question I can answer. We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, was only 4 and more in 1372, so Hugh was likely not very old. We might estimate Hugh to have been born in the 1340s. I've found an IPM for Sir Thomas de Swynford, who I think is almost certainly Sir Hugh Swynford's father [CIPM vol 11, 197]. It's taken the Friday after St Nicholas day, 35 Edward III (9 Dec 1361). Thomas also held the manor of Coleby, and his heir was his son, a Hugh Swynford, was aged 21 or more. That means Thomas's son Hugh was born in or before 1340. That's quite plausible for him to be Katherine de Roet's husband, but probably not enough time for there to have been two generations of Hughes, unless he was much older than 21. I'm sure this is not new information, but I don't recall seeing it presented elsewhere. > Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches. Possibly, and there are modern Swinfords, particularly in the Gloucestershire area. I doubt it's possible to prove their descent from Sir Hugh Swynford's ancestral line, but even a DNA match without a documented descent would be circumstantial evidence. > P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. Totally agree. I'd say it's probably the worst of the collaborative online trees, despite steep competition. Richard

On 24/08/17 16:34, Richard Smith wrote: > We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of > Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, I meant, of course, Thomas. Sorry about that. Richard