Peter Washbourne

• Birth: Washbourne, Worcester, England
• Parents: John de Washbourne (de Dufford) and Isabella de la Mare.
• Wife: Isolde Hanley
• Child: John Washbourne

Peter Washbourne was not the son of "John the Younger" - he was the son of John de Washbourne (de Dufford) and Isabella de la Mare. This is proven by the following court proceeding in 1368:

1368 • Washbourne, Worcester, England

De Banco Hillary 42 Ed III Wygorn - John son of Peter de Wasseburne, sued Katrine, formerly wife of John, son of Roger de Wasseburne, for the Manor of Wasseburne.

(Plea Rolls Worcestershire, De Banco, Hillary. 42 Ed. 3 m. 50 dorso.) "...John son of Peter de Wasseburne...claims against Katherine who was the wife of John, son of Roger de Wasseburne, the manor of Wasseburne Militis...because John [husband of Katherine] died without an heir himself, the fee reverted to Peter his Uncle and Heir to wit as the brother of Roger the father of the aforesaid John, son of Roger. And from Peter the fee descended to this John the son of Peter who now claims as son and heir."

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no430/bCP40no430dorses/IMG_1089...

So the actual line of descent in tail-male from John and Isabella to Norman, et al, proceeds:

John de Washbourne (de Dufford) & Isabella de la Mare, Peter (Roger’s brother), John & Margaret Poher, Norman

The idea that Roger had a second son, also named John "John the Younger", who had a son named Peter who became the Washbourne heir, appears to have been made up by the Washbournes in an attempt to create a stronger, more direct, tail-male descent for the Washbourne fees. This deceit had become necessary as the Washbourne legal right to the family manors and fees began to be seriously contested by Katherin Trumwyn and her heirs in court, who thought that they had the stronger case.

Even the Visitation of Worcestershire 1569 repeats this folly of two Johns. This is not the first time we see a family attempt to manipulate the pedigree for political or financial reasons.

The following information from the book by Jeffery T Washburn is, unfortunately, not supported by the historical evidence. His information regarding the marriage of Peter to Isolde de Hanley is accurate.

Extract from "The Genealogical History of the Washburn Family of Northwest Tennessee" by Jeffery T Washburn of Dresden, Tennessee (jeffwashburn AT hotmail.com):

Peter Washborn, the son of John Washborn II and Isabella Washborn, was believed to have been born in 1329 in Little Washbourne, England.

Peter married Isolde Hanley in 1355. Isolde was stated to be the daughter of John De Hanley, of Hanley William in Worcestershire, but the pedigrees gathered for Heralds' College state that her father was Thomas Hanley. The Hanley family was an ancient and distinguished family residing in Worcestershire, England. Peter and Isolde had two sons, John and William. No lineage descending from William has been uncovered by genealogical researchers.

John de Washbourne (de Dufford) passed the Washbourne fees and manors on to his eldest son Roger de Washbourne who passed some of them on to his son John, who was married to Katherine (Katrine) Trumwyn. John died without issue. When Roger's male line also failed, the fees and manors reverted back to John de Washbourne (de Dufford)'s younger son Peter de Washbourne. Subsequently Peter's son, also named John, had to fight in court to retain or regain the Washbourne properties. The following case is but one example. This case is also material in that it tells us that Peter was Roger's brother and not his grandson ....

Links

• http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=ricrhode&...

  ---