22 NOTES AND QUERIES. 1 12 s.x. JAN. 14,1922. a son, Ralph, born, too previously (ibid., p. 423) ; and she was dead by 1531. In his will, however, William does not say that any of his children are by either wife. " William Troutbeck, knight : to bury in my chapel of S. Mary of the Hill, in Chester : wife Margaret and Thomas Hoghe ex'ors : my lord of Ely * overseer : twenty- four servants to have black gowns to accompany testator's body to burial : twelve poor men to have white gowns and to bear twelve torches, t As touching lands : By deeds, &c., of May 1, 23 Henry VII. : Thomas Hoghe and William Frodsham feoffees, &c., by recovery, &c., of all my lands in Cheshire, to grant certain manors to Margaret my wife for her life for jointure : also to sons and daughters of testator for term of their lives, &c., remainder to right heirs : children named in the deeds. " Dated 9 September, 1510 ; proved 3 December, 1510, by the ex'ors." Though the children were named in the deeds, none are named in the will ; therefore it is manifest they were all born by 1508, and it might follow also that none of them had died by 1510. Since the executors are the relict and her agnate Thomas Hoghe, the interests of her issue might seem to be safeguarded, and presumably the Bishop of Ely will be able to supervise. But what became of these children ; what were the manors and all the lands in Cheshire ; and by what date does the remainder to right heirs convey anything to Margaret, the wife of John Talbot, or to her representative ? Moreover, that is not quite the last question. At the death of her -uncle William in 1510, the last-named Margaret is said to be aged 16 and already Talbot' s wife; therefore the statement is that she was born about 1494. Her mother, Adam's wife, was another Margaret, expressly called daughter of " Sir John Butler of Bewsey," namely, the guar- dian, as above, of William the heir, Adam's elder brother. When John Talbot of Grafton died in 3 Edward VI., Sept. 10, 1549, he left a will (P.C.C.,.40 Populwell) whereof he appoints as overseer " Richard Trutbek my
- James Stanley, 1506-1515 : testator's mother
is called Margaret Stanley, sister of Thomas, first Earl of Derby, father of the bishop. t The distinction in status and garb was apparently a well-recognized custom, and the fee of the " poor men " at one period seems to 1iave been generally half-a-crown apiece, whence the occasional description " halfcrownsmen." father in law." He made his wife executrix, without mentioning her name. By the visitations apparently in error, however she was Elizabeth, daughter of Walter Wrottesley, knight ; she is said to have died May 10, 1559, Walter having died, as it seems, in 1502. Whatever the facts so far, it was not till April 2, 1580, that letters of administration de bonis non after the death of the executor (i.e., this second wife and relict) issued to John Talbot nepcti ex filio, namely, to the testator's grandson, who was father of George, ninth Earl of Shrewsbury. That suggests that the executrix lived till about 1580 ; which is no proof that she was not born by 1502. The immediate question, however, is in what sense does Talbot call Richard Trutbek his father-in-law ? The description was often used with much laxity it may at any time cover a stepfather here it can only mean the father of the testator's wife or her stepfather or his own stepfather. Pre- sumably it cannot mean a husband of the testator's mother, if she had married first Barton, second Talbot, and third Richard Gardiner, Lord Mayor of London in 1478, who was dead in 1488/9, thus leaving it quite improbable that either she or any final hus- band could be still alive 60 years later, in 1549. If, then, that lady was really this Talbot' s mother, and Richard consequently no husband of hers, he must be in some sense the father of the testator's wife, namely, of one of his wives. In that case is it to be another wife, in between the Margaret of his youth and the executrix cf his will, or is Elizabeth " Wrottesley " daughter of some Richard Trutbek : or is that Richard to re- present the father of the first wife ? Under that superficial explanation, the testator contradicts the juries at the inquisitions, whose authority is liable to be quite as good as his own. The further possibility that Richard may be no more than stepfather to one of the wives is apparently even more difficult, As a simple alternative, perhaps, the pedi- grees are a little wrong somewhere both of them. The hints that a generation of Talbot has been dropped out are plain enough, if misleading. Equally obvious is the indica- tion that Richard will be one of the children of William Troutbeck ; but, if so, by which marriage ? Was he born by " 1491 " and therefore now nearing or past 60 ? Mani- festly he is not born after that year if it is to be his daughter who was born about 1494, as
