2017-05-18 19:13:27 UTC
John Wodhull - died 1296, son and heir Thomas 23 yo
Thomas Wodhull (1272-1304) – died 1304, son and heir John 1 year 17 weeks old
John Wodhull (1302-1336) - died 1336, son and heir John 16 yo
John Wodhull (c1320-1348) – died 1348, son and heir John 5 ½ yo
John Wodhull (1342-1367) – Died 1367, 2 daughters and co-heirs Elizabeth 3 yo & Eleanor 2 yo
Here is where the problem comes when. When Elizabeth and Eleanor both die underage in 1376/7, their heir was their great-uncle Nicholas Wodhull.
He was called “Nicholas de Wodhull, aged 24 years and more, uncle of John their father.” And “Nicholas de Wodhull, aged 30 years and more, brother of John father of John de Wodhull their father.” The problem is, there is no way the brother of their grandfather was born c1352 when his supposed father died in 1336.
Charles Hanson wrote a long article on the Wodhull family (The Genealogist, vol. 7 (1986):28-29.). He solves this problem by saying Nicholas was not a brother of their grandfather, but rather his nephew. He says the grandfather John Wodhull (1320-1348) had a brother Thomas and Nicholas was a son of this Thomas.
Thomas Wodhull (1272-1304)
John (1320-1348) Thomas (born about 1322)
John (1342-1367) Nicholas (born 1352)
Eleanor&Elizabeth d. 1376
As evidence for the existence of this Thomas, Hanson cites the Tropenell Cartulary which includes a suit with testimony giving a long Wodhull descent:
Manor of Little Dunsford granted to Thomas Wodhull by Harry Preiers (his father-in-law)
His son John Wodhull
His son Thomas Wodhull
His son John Wodhull d.s.p.
His brother Nicholas Wodhull
His son Richard Wodhull
His brother Thomas Wodhull
His son Thomas Wodhull
His son John Wodhull (living at the time of the suit in 1471)
However this pedigree is clearly flawed:
No John Wodhull died without issue,
No Wodhull was ever directly succeeded by his brother.
The first Thomas Wodhull had a son John, but his son and heir was John not Thomas.
There is no evidence that the second Thomas Wodhull existed at all.
There is evidence that the John who died in 1348 had a brother Nicholas, as he was the executor of his will.
So, something is wrong in the IPMs of Eleanor and Elizabeth.
1. If their heir was Nicholas, brother of their grandfather, then Nicholas’ age cannot have been 24 years old as stated, and Hanson’s reconstruction is wrong. Could the translated dates from the original IPM be wrong?
2. If Nicholas was age 24 years old in 1376, then he cannot have been the brother of Elizabeth & Eleanor’s grandfather as stated. Could the translated relationship from the original IPM be wrong?