Page:The Ancestor Number 1.djvu/233

 THE ANCESTOR i8i Edward I. (1284-7) > we found in the depositions that he died a hundred years before the controversy with Scrope (circa 1286)5 was buried at the Friars Minors in Chester. His son, also named Robert, was a minor in 1293, when there was a dispute about his wardship between Richard de Lostok and the abbot, settled by a concord in the abbot's favour, Henry de Lascy Earl of Lincoln (as chief lord of the other party) apposing his claim. At the same time Margery, the widow, was suing the abbot for her dower.^ In March, 1305, being then of age, he did homage to the abbot for his manor of ' Lostoke,' on Saturday after the feast of St. Edward king and confessor, 33 Edward I.^ A year later he joined with his wife, another Margery, in executing two trust deeds of his estates. As sheriff of Chester he witnesses two deeds (dated 1--5 Edward II., between 1307 and 13 12) now in the Record Office,^ but has not been included either in the official list of sheriffs or in Ormerod's. At this point a serious difficulty arises. According to all the pedigrees, and the deponents' statements, the last Robert was great-grandfather of Sir Robert Grosvenor, the defendant in 1386, and this was his grandfather, who married Emma Modbur- legh, and lived until about 1 340. But there is an entry in the Ledger Book of Vale Royal that in 1328, on Saturday after the feast of St. Richard bishop and confessor, Robert le Grovenour of Ruddheth did homage for the manor of Lostok.^ If we are to accept this statement — and it cannot be lightly ignored — it means that the depositions as well as the pedigrees are wrong ; that one generation has somehow been left out ; and that there were three Roberts in succession instead of two. Further, the dates involve a certain awkwardness. Assuming the second Robert to be no older than twenty-one when he did homage in 1305, and that Sir Robert stated his age accurately at fifty in 1 39 1, the great-grandson would be only fifty-seven years younger than his great-grandfather ; or in other words, sons were born in three successive generations when the fathers were under twenty years of age. Even that, improbable as it may seem, is not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility. ^ Chester Plea Roll, No. 7, mm. i, 6. 2 Ledger Book, MS. Harl. 2064, fF. 275, 281. ^ Ancient Deeds, B. 1843, 1845. might conjecture that 2 Edward III. was an error for 2 Edward I.
 * MS. Harl. 2064, f. 258. The date 1328 is inserted in the text ; or one