Sir Edward Grey, 3rd (and last) Baron Grey of Powis - A clerical error or fraudulent genealogy?

This is fascinating -- thanks, Arrows!

The link to the chapter in the book in question: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=p1YBAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&...

Pages 110-124 are useful, as they set the whole problem in context.

Essentially:

There is a decades-long dispute concerning the Powys estates. Part of the issue concerns whether or not there was an Elizabeth Grey who married John Ludlow (Elizabeth Ludelow) -- in 1585, the lords Burleigh and Leicester certified that there was no daughter of ay of the Lords Powys except for the Elizabeth Grey who married Roger Kynaston (Lady Elizabeth Grey) -- but I can only manage one of these issues at a time, and thus focus on Sir Edward Grey --

The issue is that Sir Edward had no legitimate issue, but willed his estate to his mistress Jane Orwell, and the children she had by him.

And in inquistions of 1554, 1559, and 1561, the juries found that there was no Jane Orwell, daughter of Lewis Orwell, and that Edward, the son of Joan Kempe, had pretended to be Edward Grey, and obtained Sir Edward Grey's estates, by forgery and pretending to be his son.

Well, then, you might well ask, as did I, why isn't this part of the genealogy? Why do such experts as Peter Bartrum give the genealogy as we have it currently, that is, that Sir Edward Grey had children by Jane Orwell, and that the will stands? (Jane Orwell comes into Bartrum's bailiwick because she married a Herbert, as well as a lord of Powys, and was therefore connected to the Welsh Marcher families twice.)

Because, after decades of back and forth, the court of wards in 1585 decreed that the three inquisitions I mention above were insufficient, being without the authority of the writ.

And then, though there are more decades of wrangling between the Kynastons and te Vernons, the issue of whether Sir Edward Grey had children by Jane Orwell is dropped.

Morris Charles Jones, the author of the book we've linked to, believes that the Vernons brought the original three inquisitions in order to establish a foundation for the suits.

at any rate.

What has this got to do with us? Well, if indeed the Vernons were right and Edward Grey nefariously forged a will so as to steal the Powys estates, our concern is that he isn't the son of Sir Edward and we should fix the Tree.

My own assessment of this is that the evidence is problematic, and indeed the 16th century courts and lawyers found it so.

The extent to which politics and cronyism affected decisions is impossible for me to say, but Edward seems to have not lost his inheritance, which is pretty important.

I would, at this point, favor leaving the tree as it is, but adding in curator's notes and links to the study of the legal issues to the Overview.

And then tackling the Ludlow/Kynaston issue later -- there is already information in her Geni profile concerning the Vernon suit, but nothing has been resolved. see Elizabeth Ludelow

But I have questions:

Am I reading this study of the cases rightly? There is a lot of legalese involved.

Are there other suggestions as to what, if anything, we should do with this information?