Hugh de Plugenet - Plunkett or Plugenet VS. Pluket or Plochet

According to Notts History, which I quote extensively because I am itching to solve this lineage:

An early mention of a de Dunham is in the Red Book of the Exchequer, which dates from the time of Henry II. The date of the following entry is 1155: (Translation) "For land given to the Count of Flanders in Dunham £40. Robert son of Hugo de Dunham £112 clear". "The same (Count of Flanders) £7 for land in Darlton."

Again, "Galfar, Archdeacon of Canterbury, rendered an account of £880 etc and in lands given to Yuoni (John) de Dunham Xs, 17 Henry II. (1171). And in lands given to the son of Hugo (de Dunham) 112s precisely in Clayworth (a neighboring village). And (of lands given) to the Count of Boulogne £60 in Dunham".

The same sheriff rendered an account of £10 of the farm of Darlton, a part of Dunham. "And in lands given to Yuoni de Dunham 10s".

In 1166, "Ranulfus filius Constantini et Recardus de Dunham has to provide two horsemen for his overlord in the service of the King."

Also from the Red Book 1210-1212, "Reginald de Dunham dedit domino suo Willielmo de Caisnet 7 marc ad exercitam Wales", (before 1212).

"John de Dunham hold a third part in Dunham and Stockton of the honor of de Lascy," (1210).

In 1276, Henricus de Dunham subscribes 11s towards Crusades to Holy Lands.

In the Fine Rolls, which commence in the reign of King John, and contain accounts of fines paid to the Crown for licenses to alienate land, for freedom from knight's service, there is mention in 1200 of Richard de Dunham. He paid to the King 100 silver marks. In the same year Thomas and Will de Dunham paid 45 marks, and in 1205 Alexander de Dunham paid 5 marks.

In the Rotuli Hundredorum (temp Edward I.) mention is made that Clement de Dunham paid 4s and scutage for land. John de Dunham held one messuage and 20 acres of land for 2/6. William de Dunham and Mable daughter of Roger held 2 messuages and half a rood for 2/3. John de Dunham held one messuage and croft containing 22 acres of land for 14/-. Robert de Dunham paid fine in capitate to William de Valence of Gainsborough for right of use of the river Trent.

In Testa de Nevill, Hoiis de Dunham is mentioned in the reign of Henry III.

The Close Rolls state, Sept 24, 1336, that John de Dunham was granted "exemption for life from juries, assize, or recognizances for appointment as mayor, sheriff, etc., against his wish." In 1337 the same privileges were granted to Robert de Dunham. These exemptions may have been granted for some special service rendered for the King, or on payment of a sum of money.

There are in the British Museum a number of charters referring to members of the de Dunham family, either as purchasing or selling land, or as witnesses to the transactions of others.

During the reign of Henry III., there is mention of Richard son of Oliver de Dunham, John son of Ada de Dunham, Reginald son of Ede de Dunham.

Early in the 14th century mention is made of John de Dunham and Robert his brother, these would be the same as the John and Robert mentioned in the Close Rolls as being granted certain privileges. In 1331 there is a Richard de Dunham, and in 1334 there is Robert son of Richard. Between 1340 and 1351 John is mentioned five times and Robert once.

Between 1357 and 1379 John son of Walter is mentioned 21 times. He left Dunham, sold his property, and went to Eakring which is nine miles southwest of Dunham. We gather this information from charters as follows:—No. 53216. "Grant by John son of Walter de Dunham and Isabella his wife to Richard Seman of Ragnall, John de Glentham, chaplains, and John de Hull of Torksey, co Lincs, of all their lands, tenements, etc and goods and chattels in Dunham, Ragnall, Wympton, and Darlton. Date, 19 January, 1377."

No. 5401. "Covenant, John son of Walter de Dunham and Alicia his wife (evidently he was twice married) granted to William Longespy of Ragnall all his tenements and lands in Ragnall, Wympton and Derletone (co Notts). Day before feast of St. Lawrence, 1372."

No. 53225. "Affidavit by George de Eucryingham (Eakringham now Eakring) that John Fitz Walter (John son of Walter) on his death was not enfeoffed or seized of any lands and tenements '' presumptuous et magistris'' as did his brother Dom Reginald de Eucryingham, chivaler." (Early 15th century).

Another son of the family, the head of which was Gregory, resided at Darlton. He is mentioned in charters of 1368 and 1393. The de Dunhams held land in Darlton of the King, whose manor it was until the time of Charles I. In 1331 a Robert de Dunham in Darlton witnessed a charter.

In 1544 an inquisition states that "the lands in Darlton are held of the King (Henry VIII.) yearly value 20/-."

At this time another branch of the family was residing at Dunham, for the same inquisition states that "Thomas de Dunham of Lord Borough (lord of the Manor of Dunham) 10/ yearly fealty etc, value 10/8 yearly."

"The said manors and premises including Drayton are worth yearly beside reprises (i.e., yearly payments out of the Manors as rent, charges, etc) £16." This means that the Manor lands of Darlton were rented by John de Dunham. "They say John Dunham died 9 May, 1524, and that Sir John is his son and heir and is 50 years of age and upwards."

For several hundred years the de Dunhams were a family of position and importance in the country, and several members held the title of knight.

In 1450 Sir John de Dunham of Dunham-on-Trent married Elizabeth Bowitt, widow of William Chaworth. Her mother was Elizabeth Zouche, daughter of Sir John Zouche and Margaret de Burgh, who was a daughter of Thomas de Burgh and Lucie de Bellaque.

After her death, 20 Mar 17 Henry VII., (1502), John de Dunham became possessed of the manor of Kirklington. They had a son, Sir John, who was then 28 years of age. He

married first, Jane daughter of Sir ------ Thurland de Gamelstone, and for his second wife Benet, daughter of Sir Godfrey Fuljambe. By his first wife he had issue John, who died young, and four daughters, viz, Katherine who married Rad Okeover, Frances (or Elizabeth) who married John Hazlewood to whom passed the manor of Kirklington, and in whose family it remained for four generations, and was then sold to John More, doctor of physic. There were three other daughters, Margaret unmarried, Ann wife of George Newell, and Mary wife of Thomas Grantham.

In a deed of Newark, date March 1502, it is stated "The manor of Kirklington was granted to John de Dunham and Elizabeth his wife, heir and remainder from Sir John Zouche, knight. Sir John died at Kirklington 1525, the year after his father. Thoroton says "I find that John Dunham esq, 3 Henry VIII. (1511), suffered a recovery of the manors of Kirklington, Rughagh, and great quantities of land in Kirklington, Rughagh, Hockerton, Halam, Edingley, Osmundthorp, Normanton, Middlethorp, Caunton, Harlesey, Kirsall, Darleton, Drayton, Dunham, Ragnall and Wympton, and called to warrant John Dunham, knight."

Sir John had a sister, Elizabeth, who married Sir Richard Bassett lord of the manor of Fledborough.

In 1511 Sir John de Dunham was Sheriff of Nottingham.

The family subsequently went to Scrooby, from whence a John Dunham went to Plymouth, Massachusetts, with the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620, and became deputy of the colony.

Unfortunately the old Dunham registers have been lost, the earliest preserved commences 1654, so that no information can be obtained from that source with regard to the Dunhams. And among the old Wills of Dunham proved at Southwell, now in the Probate Office in Nottingham, of which there are a considerable number subsequent to 1560 and a few earlier, there are none of the Dunham family. It would appear, therefore, that the family removed about the middle of the 16th century, the date of the last mention of the family in Dunham being 1564. There are numerous descendants of the family in the U. S. A., one of whom is Mr. Otis Emerson Dunham, president of the firm of Messrs. Page & Shaw, Candy Manufacturers, Boston, Mass.

http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/monographs/dunham1924/dunham05.htm

________________________________________

So, Ralph Pluket received a grant for Dunham in Notts, from Matthew, Count of Boulogne, also known as Matthew of Alsace (c. 1137–1173), the second son of Thierry, Count of Flanders and Sibylla of Anjou.

However, Ralph Pluket didn't live long afterwards, and from what I have been able to gather neither married nor left any progeny.

So shortly after his death, Robert, son of Hugo Dunham, I guess purchased the land from the count of Flanders. And I would presume that this Hugo adopted the surname Dunham simply because he lived there.

Was Ralph Pluket kin to this Hugo and Robert Dunham family? Idk. If not, who the heck were they? And were they kin to the Retford Denmans, and those of Tickhill and New Hall?

There is a lot more Denman family history on Notts History and elsewhere, I need to review. And I appreciate any help that might be forthcoming. Here is one last tantalizing source (imho):

https://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations3/JN-03-03/179Ba...

In Rosie Bevan's 2010 genealogical exposee, "Lost in Time: the Other Daughter of Hamelin de Ballon", the blood connection is made between the wife of William Denman (sitting directly at the top of the Denman of New Hall, Tickhill, pedigree chart), Joan Bolingbroke -- to this unknown second daughter of Hamelin de Ballon.

And the author managed to fill in a lot of the earlier gaps in Joan Bolingbroke's ancestry, with its ties to the Tinsleys, Wentworths, and the justiciar, William of London. Bevan took that part of the lineage all the way back to the early 13th century, for which I am very grateful. But of course, I have a lot more work to do.

After the battle of Evesham, Meonstoke escheated to the king, who granted it to Geoffrey de Percy, probably the heir of William de Percy, who in 1268 sold it to Robert Waleraund. (fn. 16)

The latter died seised of the manor in 1272, his heir being his nephew, Robert Waleraund, son of his younger brother William. (fn. 17)

Meonstoke, however, was for some time held in dower by Maud widow of Robert Waleraund, the uncle, (fn. 18) and never seems to have been delivered over to Robert Waleraund, the nephew, who died without issue about the end of the thirteenth century.

His heir was his brother John, who died seised of the manor at the beginning of the reign of Edward II. (fn. 19) By an inquisition taken after his death the following were returned as his heirs:

(1) His cousin, John de Eddeworth, second son of his aunt Alice, who was the eldest surviving sister of his father William;

(2) his cousin Alice de Everingham, second daughter of his aunt Cecily, who was his father's second surviving sister;

(3) his cousin's son Bevis de Knoville, son of Joan, who was the eldest daughter of his aunt Cecily;

(4) his cousin's son Alan de Plunkenet, son of Alan de Plunkenet, who was the eldest son of his aunt Alice;

(5) his cousin's daughter Maud de Croupes alias Bret, eldest daughter of Cecily, who was the third daughter of his aunt Cecily; and

(6) her younger sister Cecily wife of Peter de Hulyon.

______________________________________________

The question as to the succession was finally decided in favour of Alan de Plunkenet, (fn. 20) who died before 1325, in which year the king assigned to his widow Sybil the third part of the manor of Meonstoke of the yearly value of £10 10s. (fn. 21)

Joan de Bohun of Kilpeck, sister and heir of Alan, without licence, quitclaimed the manor to Nicholas de Useflete, who had obtained a lease of it some years before, (fn. 22) and the manor escheated to the king, who, however, in 1328 pardoned Nicholas, and restored the manor to him. (fn. 23)

Joan de Bohun died without issue in 1327, her heir being her cousin's son Richard de la Bere, grandson of Richard de la Bere, brother and heir of her father, Alan de Plunkenet, (fn. 24)...

[NOTE: Richard de la Bere was the >brother< of this Alan de Plukenet whose wife was "Sybil", and whose daughter was Joan de Bohun. Both of Alan and Sybil's children died sans progeny.]

...to whom Thomas de Useflete, parson of the church of Meonstoke, some four years later, quitclaimed two-thirds of the manor and the reversion of the remaining third after the death of Sybil, wife of Henry de Pembrigge. (fn. 25)

Richard de la Bere, while lord of the manor, alienated parts of it at various times without licence, (fn. 26) finally granting a life-interest in the whole manor to Robert de Hoe and Lucy his wife, who in 1347 obtained licence to retain it for that term in return for the payment of 1 mark. (fn. 27)

Robert and Lucy were still living in 1353, in which year they acquired other premises in Meonstoke, (fn. 28) and while still in possession obtained licence from William de Edendon, bishop of Winchester, to celebrate mass in the oratory of their dwelling-house in the parish of Meonstoke. (fn. 29)

Some time afterwards the manor seems to have escheated to the king, who granted it to trustees to the use of the celebrated Alice Perrers, (fn. 30) from which circumstance it was commonly called the manor of Meonstoke Perrers.

In 1376 the Good Parliament sentenced Alice to banishment and forfeiture, but in the following year the Bad Parliament reversed this sentence, (fn. 31) and she regained her possessions. However, in the first Parliament of Richard II she was brought before the lords at the request of the commons, and the sentence against her was confirmed. (fn. 32) Meonstoke accordingly escheated to the crown, and for two years was in the hands of stewards, Thomas Illeston being appointed in 1378, (fn. 33) and John Barell the following year. (fn. 34) On 14 December, 1379, the sentence against Alice was revoked, and on 15 March, 1380, the manor was granted in fee-simple to her husband, William de Windsor, (fn. 35) who in the following June obtained licence from the king to sell it to William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, (fn. 36) by whom it was granted to Winchester College in 1385. (fn. 37) The manor still forms part of the possessions of the college.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp254-257#highligh...

______________________________________________

In 1332 Essex, Richard de la Bere sued Sir Thomas de Weston for properties in Reynham near Dagenham in which Thomas had no entry except by an unjust disseisin of Alan de Plukenet his Kinsman, whose heir he is, and he gave his pedigree...

>It will be noted, the younger branch had assumed the name of "de la Bere".<

Thomas claimed by a grant from the King, the tenements in question forming part of the lands of Oliver de Plukenet which had fallen to the King as an eschaet.

https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/16/mode...

In 1363 Southampton, Laurence de St. Martin and Miles, son of Sir Miles Stapelton, sued Thomas de la Bere for the manor of Moenestoke Walerand.

The plaintiffs denied that Thomas descended from Alice Walerand.

Both parties in the lawsuit presented their family pedigrees.

[NOTE: This particular record does not reflect the outcome of the suit, however since Richard de la Bere successfully disposed of the property as he saw fit, I would have to assume that he prevailed in the lawsuit. St. Martin and Stapelton (as far as I can tell) were not involved in the property during subsequent transactions.]

https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/85/mode...

In 1407 Southampton, John de la Bere sued William Pershute for the manor of Culmeston, which Alan de Plukenet, the elder, and Joan, his wife, had granted by Fine in 23 E. I, to Alan de Plukenet, the younger, and Sybil, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with reversion to himself and his own right heirs.

William [Pershute, the defendant] denied that Alan Plukenet had a brother Richard, and John de la Bere afterwards withdrew his suit.

[Note that withdrawal of the suit was not necessarily an admittance of error. It is likely that he simply lacked the kind of proof needed to pursue the lawsuit, or didn't feel like fighting it, and just decided to cut his losses by choosing not to invest any more time, effort, and money into it. This lawsuit occurred will over 100 years after the deaths of Alan Plukenet and his brother, Richard de la Bere.]

https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/250/mod...

Inquisitions Post Mortem, 1352, Number 52:

The king understanding that the said Alan held on the day of his death the manor of Haselbere of the king in chief, of the gift of King Edward I, and died without an heir, whereby that manor ought to belong to the king as his escheat, directs the commissioners to inquire into the foregoing and as to who has been in possession of the said manor since the said Alan’s death. 14 July, 26 Edward III.

Haselbere. The manor, which is held of the king in chief by knight’s service, of the gift of King Edward I.

The said Alan was an alien and [illegitimate] and died about fifty years ago; after his death, by restitution of the same king, Alan his son entered upon the manor as his true heir begotten of him, and continued his seisin for three years and a half.

After [Alan Plukenet, Jr.'s] death, without heir of his body, King Edward II restored a moiety of the manor to Joan [de Bohun], his sister, as his heir;

and with the other moiety the king dowered Sibyl, his wife, for her dower from this manor and from a free tenement belonging to her said husband in divers places; which moiety the said Sibyl now holds.

The aforesaid Joan occupied her moiety for three years and died without heir of her body, whereby the present king, in the fifth year of his reign, took that moiety into his hand by Simon de Bereford, then escheator on this side Trent.

After her death there came one Richard de Bere, asserting that he was her kinsman and heir and brought to the said escheator a writ of diem clausit extremum, whereby it was returned that the said Richard was heir and her kinsman on her father’s side, to the deception and disherison of the king;

whereby the king, so deceived, restored that moiety to the said Richard as such kinsman and heir, and he died seised thereof;

after whose death the king again took that moiety into his hand and restored it to Thomas, son and heir of the said Richard, who now holds and possesses it, and so the said Richard and Thomas, from the said fifth year of the king until this day, have been in possession and received and detain the profits.

Petition of Thomas de la Bere to the king and council:

Richard de la Bere, his father, in 3 Edward III, with the king’s licence, gave by fine levied a moiety of the manor of Haselbere to Edmond Everard, parson of the church of Colstreworth, who re-enfeoffed the said Richard and Clarice his wife, to hold for their lives, with successive remainders to Richard their son and the heirs of his body, John brother of the said Richard, Edmund brother of the said John, Thomas brother of the said Edmund, and the heirs of their bodies respectively, and Richard de la Bere, the father, and his heirs.

After the deaths of Richard the father, Clarice his wife, Richard the son and John and Edmund, his brothers, Thomas de la Bere, the petitioner, was seised of the moiety aforesaid, by virtue of the said fine, and the king confirmed his seisin thereof by charter, and he continued his estate therein until the escheator of Somerset, by an inquisition made ex officio, seized the said moiety into the king’s hand and all the chattels of the said Thomas, who prays the king and council to restore to him his land according to the new statute that no one maybe ousted from his land without process of law (sauns estre apoele) and that he may have his chattels, as law and reason demand. (Undated.) (French.)...

...Return: The escheator took the moiety into the king’s hand after the death of the aforesaid Joan as an escheat in consequence of an inquisition taken in virtue of his office, finding as in the inquisition above, Alan and Joan, children of Alan Plokenet, [illegitimate], both having died without heirs...

...Haselbere [a few monts later]. A moiety of the manor held by the said Sibyl in dower, of the inheritance of Thomas, son of Richard de la Bere. The said Thomas holds the entire manor of the king in chief by service of a knight’s fee. The said Sibyl held no other lands &c. in the county on the day of her death, 14 February last, and the right of the moiety she held ought to descend to the aforesaid Thomas, who holds the other moiety.

The whole of the said manor, immediately after the death of Alan son of Alan Plukenet, descended to Joan de Bohun of Kilpek, his sister and heir, because he died without heir of his body; and because the said Joan died without heir of herself the right of the said manor fell (resortitum est) to one Richard de la Bere, knight, as brother and heir of Alan Plukenet, father of the said Alan son of Alan and [daughter] Joan de Bohun.

From the said Richard the right descended to Richard de la Bere, as son and heir; from him to Richard de la Bere as son and heir; and from him to the aforesaid Thomas, as son and heir, who is 30 years of age and more.

[END OF FILE. Apparently, Richard de la Bere prevailed in his petition to the King to have the estate of Alan Plukenet restored to himself. The escheator of the inquisition post mortem had decided against him, but his petition to the King ended in his favor. So he must have been able to prove his case in court...So although the escheator alleged that Richard de la Bere's claim was fraudulent -- it was not, after all.]

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol10/pp58-70#...

>1308< Inquisition Post Mortem for John Walerand (son of William Walerand)

[There are too many examples to list here, but throughout the documents covering numerous properties in the estate, Alice, wife of Alan de Plukenet (d. ca.1298), is clearly identified as the sister of William Walerand.]

Weston. A messuage, 140a. land, rents, &c. held by the said John Walrond of the heirs of John de Boron by service of 1/2 knight’s fee. Alan Plokenet, aged 24, is his next heir and of the whole blood.

Reynham: The manor (extent given), held by the said Robert of the king in chief as of his castle of Dover, by service of rendering 20s. yearly at the said castle. Alan Plokenet, aged 21 and more, is kinsman and next heir of the said John.

Tatlyngton: William Walrand, father of John, deceased, had only one sister of the whole blood named Alice; Alan Plukenet, deceased, was her son, and Alan his son, aged 23, is next heir of the said John Walrand.

Fromptone Cotel: Heirs, the said Alan son of Alan Plokenet, son of Alice sister of Robert Waleraund, aged 28 and more, and the abovesaid John aged 30 and more, Bevis de Knoyvill aged 28 and more, Alice aged 30 and more, Maud la Brut aged 29 and more, and Cecily aged 27 and more.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol5/pp70-79#h...

Genealogy should always be founded on facts, never on rumors and misinterpretations. It seems that Alan de Plukenet's brother's adoption of the surname "de la Bere" confused everyone (including at least one or two escheators of the king. And sadly, the lines have suffered from it, simply because people don't take the time to read the original records.

Note that in 1308 Alan Plukenet, Jr. was quite a young man (about age 20), and his brother, Richard de la Bere was younger. So Alan was the heir apparent UNTIL much later it turned out that either he or his son (there were three Alans in a row, I gather) died sans progeny. Which meant that Alan Plukenet's younger brother, Richard de la Bere's HEIRS (several also named "Richard") -- legally stood to inherit the family estate.

Both Alan Plukenet, Jr. and his sister, Joan de Bohun, died sans progeny. Alan, Jr. had a son also named Alan, but he died sans progeny. So the estate then went to the heirs of the brother of Alan Plukenet, Sr., who was Richard de la Bere.

Alan Plukenet, Sr. married Alice, sister of William Walerand.

Alan Plukenet, Jr. married "Sybil" (Unknown?)

Alan Plukenet III was evidently unmarried. But his sister married I think it was John de Bohun. Regardless, that was the end of Alan's line.

"Alan, son of Alan Plukenet, son of Alice, sister of William Walround, father of John last deceased, aged 30 and more, is his next heir. "So it probably was Alan III who was age 20 at the time of the inquisition (makes sense).

Also, I notice that even in the one series of records for the Walerand inquisition post mortem, Plukenet was spelled at least six different ways: Plokenet, Plogenet, Plugenai, Plunkenet, and Plukenet.

Finally, last but certainly not least, the pedigrees presented in court from all claimants:

***Pedigree starting with William Walraund and Is[abel] his wife, showing three children only, viz.—1. William, from whom sprang Robert and John (who died) without (issue); 2. *Alice, from whom sprang Alan [Plugenet];* and 3. Robert (who died) without (issue).

***Another Pedigree starting from the same William and Isabel, but showing eight children, viz.— 1. Robert, 2. John, a clerk, 3. *Alice,* and 4. Maud, who all (died) without (issue); 5. William, from whom sprang Robert and John, idiots, as above; 6. Isabel, from whom sprang Emery de Parco, and 7. Alesia, from whom sprang John de Edwrth, both of whom (died) without (issue); and 8. Cecily, from whom sprang Joan, and from her Bevis de Knovill, Alice de Everingham, and Cecily, from whom sprang Maud la Brut and Cecily de Heliun.

***Pedigree starting from Hugh de Kylpeck, showing two daughters, viz.— 1. Isabel, from whom sprang Robert and John (who both died) without (issue); and 2. Joan, from whom sprang Mazera, and from her Joan de Frivyll (wife of) Alexander de Fryvyll, who now sues, and Maud from whom sprang Ralph le Botiler, who now sues.

---The said Alan says that William Walraund, grandfather of the said John, begot of Isabel his wife two sons William and Robert, and one daughter Alice (see the first pedigree above) to whom the whole right of inheritance of the said John reverted, and whose heir he is.

---And the said Alice and the others say that the said William Walraund did not beget of the said Isabel any Alice, mother of Alan father of the present Alan, nor any daughter Alice except one who afterwards was abbess of Romeseye and died without issue, but the said William begot of the said Isabel three sons and five daughters (see the second pedigree above) and the whole right of inheritance of the said John reverted to Cecily his aunt, from whom sprang the said Alice and the others;

and they pray that it may be enquired by the country, and Alan likewise. Therefore it is ordered to the sheriffs of cos. Southampton and Gloucester to cause jurors of the neighbourhoods of Kulmeston and Syston to come before the king on the morrow of the Purification,

who say that the said William Walraund begot in matrimony of his wife Isabel the said Alice, mother of Alan Plunkenet, father of the present Alan, and aunt of the said John deceased; from which Alice the said Alan the father, and from him the present Alan were begotten in lawful matrimony;

and the said William had no other issue of the said Isabel but the said William (the son), Robert, Alice, and another Alice, afterwards abbess of Romeseye; wherefore they say precisely that the said Alan is next heir of the said John Walrand.

Therefore it was considered that the said Alice de Everyngham and the others take nothing by their petition, and that seisin be delivered to the said Alan;

So, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to prove that Alan Plukenet was indeed the grandnephew of William Walerand. And evidently his mother was Sybil Kilpeck.

I could have worded this better:

"Note that in 1308 Alan Plukenet, Jr. was quite a young man (about age 20), and his brother, Richard de la Bere was younger. So Alan was the heir apparent UNTIL much later it turned out that either he or his son (there were three Alans in a row, I gather) died sans progeny. Which meant that Alan Plukenet's younger brother, Richard de la Bere's HEIRS (several also named "Richard") -- legally stood to inherit the family estate."

Should read:

Note that in 1308 Alan Plukenet, Jr. was quite a young man (about age 20), and his [[father's]] brother, Richard de la Bere was younger. So Alan was the heir apparent UNTIL much later it turned out that either he or his son (there were three Alans in a row, I gather) died sans progeny. Which meant that [the elder] Alan Plukenet's younger brother, Richard de la Bere's HEIRS (several also named "Richard") -- legally stood to inherit the family estate.

[Note that this means that Alice (Walerand) Plukenet was mother of both boys (Alan and Richard) -- and the omission of names of other children doesn't necessarily mean that there were no more, because these two are mentioned solely for legal purposes of inheritance. Also, it's a little vague as to why Richard changed his surname, but I got the impression it was in order to more readily identify himself with some property that he obtained, perhaps through another inheritance.]

Okay, Wikipedia says she also married Andrew de la Bere, which would make Richard and Alan HALF-brothers. Thus the importance of the kinship with their mother as a Walerand.

And I should point out that Wikipedia doesn't mention her first husband, Alan Plukenet.

Also, Alan Jr.'s wife Sybil may not have been a Kilpeck. I have to review that portion of the branch. She seems to be 'ancestry unknown' at this point.

Another possibility (which I think is most likely), is that Richard nee Plukenet was adopted by his step-father, Andrew de la Bere (thus the changed surname). That's if I read it correctly.

Andrew de la Bere

Alice Walerand

This is the correct parentage for Alan de Plukenet and Richard de la Bere. This Alice needs to be connected to Alan as his mother. For some reason, some genealogists have confused her with her mother, Alice Rochford. Granted there were a swarm of Alices in that family, including one Alesia/Alicia.

Alice Waleran was married to a "Plukenet" who was described as a "foreigner" and 'illegitimate'. She and her husbands all died around 1295-1298, according to the available data.

A Plukente/Pugenet is listed on the Battel Abbey Roll.

So again, this Richard de la Bere is the one who should be Alan's brother. The dates line up with the court records, too.

Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett, Duchess of Cleveland, included a succinct history of the Delabere family in volume one of her Battle Abbey textbook, pp. 308-10.

"In Gloucestershire the De la Beres are said to have held Southam-de-la-Bere from the time of the Conquest; but the pedigree given in Sir Richard Atkyns' History of the county makes Richard de la Bere, who was living in 1390, only fourth in descent from the first Sir Richard that settled there: whereas an interval of more than two hundred and forty years could scarcely be spanned by less than seven, if not eight, generations. The son and namesake of this latter
Richard, who likewise lived in the reign of Ed. II., succeeded to the estate of Alan Lord Plugenet as heir of the whole blood; and in the following generation Sir John de la Bere married Agnes, the granddaughter and co-heiress of Sir Gilbert de Turbevile."

John de la Bere

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Battle_Abbey_Roll/yV8JAAAA...

In volume 3 of her text, Lady Catherine addresses the Plukenet family origins and history.

"Plukenet, or De Plugеnet, from Plouquenet, near Rennes, in Brittany.

"Alan de Plugеnoi occurs in Oxfordshire 1158 (Rot. Pip.) and Hugh de Plugеnet, of the same county, in 1201 (Rot. Cancellarii). He married Sibill, daughter of Jose de Dinant, and acquired Lamborne in Berkshire: his son Alan in 1219 paid one hundred marks for livery of Lamborne.

"Another Sir Alan, his descendant, fought on the King's side at Evesham, and received as his reward one of the manors forfeited by the rebels, with the custody of Dunster Castle in Somersetshire. Of another promised recompense he was, however, disappointed. “Eustachia, the widow of Nicholas de Cantilupe, having married William de Ros, although the King had promised her to Alan Plunkenett, William de Ros was decreed to pay reasonable amends (rationabiles emendas) and two hundred marks was accordingly paid as the value of the lady.”— Blaauw's Barons ' War.

"In 1272 he succeeded his mother's brother, Robert de Waleraund, in the Herefordshire barony of Kilpeck, and had summons to parliament from 1295 to 1297.

“He distinguished himself in the Welsh wars; nor was he less eminent in other ways. By his skill a large portion of the Haywood, hitherto uncultivated, was redeemed and bears to this day the name of Alansmore, and the Abbey of Dore (where he was afterwards buried) was enriched by a grant of the advowsons of Lugwardyne, with the chapels of Hentland, St. Weonards, Llangarren, and Little Dewchurch, appertaining to it.

"He died in 1299, and was succeeded by his son of the same name, a combatant in the Scottish wars, and in 1311 a Baron of Parliament. He obtained a charter for a weekly market and yearly fair at Kilpeck.

"On his death without issue in 1325 his sister Joan, wife of Edward de Bohun, became his heir; but she also died childless.” — The Castles of Herefordshire and their Lords, by C. Robinson."

Fortunately, Private User has contacted me with her concerns and a lot more useful information, regarding the following document that I had attached to the Alan de Plukenets. I wasn't sure which of the many "Richards" actually belonged to that document, so just gathered them all together for future reference, without yet adding any attributes.

Jennifer, I appreciate so much your kind generosity in helping with this problem. I was afraid it would take me years to figure out all of those "Richards"! :D

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000178786499853

_______________________________________

For the record, I had also attached two more documents for the same family group:

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000178786377891

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000178786644974

(Please bear in mind that although the "plaintifffs denied" -- the suit was settled in favor of Richard de la Bere.)

Alan de Plugenet

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol3/pp416-422

Evidently, Hugh Plukenet was the one who came over or was somehow associated personally with William the Conqueror. Thereafter, there was a line of three "Alans" The one in the middle (d. ca.1295-1298, whose post mortem inquisition I have linked here, incidentally) had a daughter named Joan, who married Thomas Corbet.

Joan Corbet

Hugh de Plugenet

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_18...

I merged the duplicate Alans, which sufficed to make the connection with Thomas Corbet.