Corbet of Caus, Shropshire

[Henry Sutliff]

The recent discussions of the Foliot, Sanford and Percy of Kildale
families have been very interesting. However, one of the frequently
cited sources is NEHGR 142: 240 which is an article by F. N. Craig
concerning the maternal ancestry of Gov. Thomas Dudley. This source is
used in MCS for this line.

However, there is one line which really troubles me and I don't know
what to make of it: "This William Corbet of Chaddesley was a younger son
or Robert Corbet, the fourth baron of Caus (A.E.C., _The Family of
Corbet_ London, 1917).

The aforementioned William Corbet was father of Hawise de Corbet (d.
aft. 1297), wife of Sir Laurence de Sanford of Melbury Turberville,
Dorset.

My dilemma is that if one uses Sanders and CP as sources, the Barony of
Corbet of Caus was not created until a later period and there were only
three Barons Corbet of Caus. Sanders does show a Robert I and Robert II
(d. 1222) as holding Caus, but it was Robert II's son Thomas who became
the first Baron.

Can anyone help clarify the apparent mistake made by Craig in his
article and exactly where William of Chaddesley belongs?

Thanks very much,

Henry Sutliff

[Todd A. Farmerie]

This appears to be a case of semantics. "Baron" refers to a peer of the
realm, a member of Parlement - thus, Barons Corbet of Caus. "baron" is
used to refer to an individual who holds in chief of the king. Thus all
Craig is saying is that William was son of Robert, the fourth person of
that family to hold Caus. (He is using a dated reconstruction of the
early Corbets, but that is a different story.) Note that the subjects
of Sanders' book are holders in chief, while CP is a study of the
peerage.

taf