Whatever you do, DO NOT trust the Visitations of Shropshire - they are horribly inaccurate and error-riddled (at least prior to parish record-keeping in the 1560s).
I found this out the hard way, trying to sort out Benthalls and Burnells (have Benthalls in my Accomack/Northampton lines). Couldn't be done without recourse to land records, charters, and other *contemporary* (or nearly so) *primary* documents. The Visitations were worse than useless.
Thomas Corbet of Lee/Leigh is highly questionable as a son of Sir Roger Corbet (d. 1396). Not only is that cutting his conception much too close (and note that Sir Roger's wife predeceased him!), there does not seem to be a record of his having been put to fosterage to anyone - and he would have *had* to be fostered if he were an infant son of the late Sir Roger.
High-level politics of the time gives us records of Robert and his younger brother Roger winding up as wards of John Burley, MP (these MPs all seem to stick together). No other Corbets are mentioned in this context. John Burley bought permission to arrange the marriage of Robert Corbet (this is one reason for thinking Margaret was his daughter or possibly niece).
"Margaret", "Margery", and "Marjorie" were at this period frequently used interchangeably (as were "Anne", "Agnes", and even sometimes "Alice"). Just something to keep in mind in regard to Margery Hulse.
Margaret Corbet Mallory's son, Thomas Mallory of Papworth St. Agnes, is the runner-up in the Morte D'Arthur Authorship Sweepstakes. The Burley connection links through by a chain of marriages to the leading contender, Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel.
