Complete Peerage Addition: Children of Robert de Uffford, 1st Earl of Suffolk (died 1369)
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 429-432 (sub Suffolk) has a rather
lengthy account of the interesting life of Sir Robert de Ufford, 1st
Earl of Sufolk (died 1369). Regarding his male children, the
following is stated in footnote i on page 432:
"In addition to Robert [his son and heir apparent], the Earl had at
least 3 sons, Thomas (Cal. Close Rolls, 1349-54, p. 503; Cal Patent
Rolls, 1361-64, p. 234); William, who succeeded him; and Walter (Idem,
1350-54, p. 208), who married Elizabeth, sister of William's 1st wife,
Joan (Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. x, no. 564; vol. xi, no. 397); Thomas is
said to have married Elizabeth, sister of William's 2nd wife, Isabel
[de Beauchamp] (Waters, op. cit., vol. i, p. 330, citing Nichols,
Topogr. and Geneal., vol. ii, pp. 273, 276)." END OF QUOTE.
Besides these four sons, Earl Robert definitely had a fifth son, John
de Ufford, clerk, Rector of Hingham, Norfolk, Archdeacon of Suffolk,
whose existence is inexplicably overlooked by Complete Peerage but was
correctly included by Waters. John de Ufford left a will dated and
proved 1375, naming his sister, Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [see
Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 330]. Maud de Ufford is
similarly named in the 1381 will of her other brother, William de
Ufford, 2nd Earl of Suffolk [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1
(1878): 334–336]. John, Maud, and William are likewise all named as
children in the 1368 will of their father, Robert de Ufford, 1st Earl
of Suffolk [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 328–329].
For those who wish to read Waters' excellent account of the Ufford
family, it may be viewed at the following weblink:
Curiously, Complete Peerage assigns no birth dates to any of Earl
Robert's sons, including his son and heir, William de Ufford, who
Waters states was aged 30 in 1369 when he succeeded his father, or
born about 1339 [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 331].
Waters does not give a source for William's age in 1369, but it is
presumably taken from his father's inquisition post mortem.
Regardless, contemporary birth records exist for the Earl Robert's
younger four sons, including his heir, William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk,
which records occur in Ellis, Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes (Rolls
Ser. 13) (1859): 437. It should be noted that such birth records are
rare for this time period. The Ufford birth records may be viewed at
the following weblink:
The Oxenedes Chronicle provides the following birth dates for the four
younger sons of Earl Robert de Ufford:
1. Thomas de Ufford, born 11 Kal. August 1332 [or 22 July 1332].
2, Walter de Ufford, born 5 Non. October 1333 [or 3 Oct. 1333].
3. William de Ufford, born 3 Kal. June 1339 [or 30 May 1338].
4. John de Ufford, born 11 Kal. Dec. 1343 [or 21 Nov. 1343].
As we see above, the birth record of William de Ufford assigns him a
birth date of 30 May 1338, which agrees well with his being aged 30 in
1369. The birth records of Walter de Ufford and William de Ufford are
significant to the genealogical history of the English royal family,
as these two brothers were married respectively to sisters, Elizabeth
de Montagu and Joan de Montagu, which Elizabeth and Joan were
granddaughters of Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, Marshal of
England, younger son of King Edward I of England.
Sadly, none of Earl Robert de Ufford's five sons left surviving issue,
but his three daughters, Cecily de Willoughby, Katherine de Scales,
and Margaret de Ferrers, all had issue and today they have a legion
number of descendants, including many members of this newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Regardless, contemporary birth records exist for the Earl Robert's
> younger four sons, including his heir, William, 2nd Earl of Suffolk,
> which records occur in Ellis, Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes (Rolls
> Ser. 13) (1859): 437. It should be noted that such birth records are
> rare for this time period. The Ufford birth records may be viewed at
> the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=q1UJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA437&dq=%22Walter+d...
>
> The Oxenedes Chronicle provides the following birth dates for the four
> younger sons of Earl Robert de Ufford:
>
> 1. Thomas de Ufford, born 11 Kal. August 1332 [or 22 July 1332].
> 2, Walter de Ufford, born 5 Non. October 1333 [or 3 Oct. 1333].
> 3. William de Ufford, born 3 Kal. June 1339 [or 30 May 1338].
> 4. John de Ufford, born 11 Kal. Dec. 1343 [or 21 Nov. 1343].
Whatever their value, these are not contemporary records and they are
not in the "Oxenedes" chronicle.
John of Oxnead (perhaps) or an unknown monk of St Benet Hulme wrote ca
1292/94.
The later details cited are from a manuscript containing a copy of
this work and continuing it down to 1503.
The authors of CP were not trying to compile a comprehensive history
of the Ufford family, or any other, but rather of the people who held
peerages. And of course they did make the effort to assess their
sources.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
In my earlier post today, I noted several irregularites and lapses in
the Complete Peerage account of the male children of Robert de Ufford,
K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk.
First, the youngest son of Earl Robert de Ufford named John de Ufford
was overlooked, even though the author of the Complete Peerage account
clearly saw Waters' record of the Ufford family which clearly sets out
the evidence for John de Ufford's existence and parentage.
Second, the estimated birth date for Earl Robert de Ufford's 4th son,
William de Ufford, was overlooked, even though Waters mentions it in
passing.
Third, the full birth records of Earl Robert's four younger sons as
published in the Oxonedes Chronicle were overlooked by both Complete
Peerage and Waters.
But there is more.
In Complete Peerage's account of Earl Robert de Ufford's sons, it is
related that his eldest son and heir apparent was Robert de Ufford,
who died "v.p. and s.p." before 29 June 1368 [see Complete Peerage, 12
(1) (1953): 432 (sub Suffolk)]. This is correct as stated. However,
it appears the younger Robert de Ufford was dead many years before
1368 and that his next brother, Thomas de Ufford, succeeded him as
heir apparent of their father. Yet none of this is mentioned by
Complete Peerage. In fact, beyond the younger Robert's marriage to
Elizabeth Botetourt, very little information is given by Complete
Peerage in its Suffolk account about the life of the younger Robert de
Ufford.
As indicated by Complete Peerage, the younger Robert de Ufford married
before 20 Aug. 1337 (date of pardon for marrying without the king’s
license) Elizabeth Botetourt, widow of William le Latimer, 3rd Lord
Latimer. This information is correct, but when checking for the
appropriate documention for this marriage, the reader is referred by
Complete Peerage to its Latimer account. When checking the Latimer
account, the reader is in turn referred to the Botetourt account. When
checking the Botetourt account, no documentation is provided there
either for Elizabeth Botetourt's identity and parentage, except for a
footnote quoting J.H. Round who states that Elizabeth, wife of William
le Latimer, was the daughter of Maud Botetourt [see Complete Peerage,
2 (1912): 235 (sub Botetourt)].
Why the run around and obfuscation you ask? Simple answer: The
Botetourt identity and parentage of Elizabeth, wife of William le
Latimer and Robert de Ufford, had been accepted by many earlier
secondary sources, including Waters. Complete Peerage accepted the
identification but was unable to find the evidence to document it. To
hide the bare cupboard, the reader was referred to account after
account, none of which provided documentation for Elizabeth
Botetourt's identity and parentage.
It is thus all the more curious that in an EARLIER edition of Complete
Peerage published back in 1898, that reference is made to a deed
executed in 1365-6 by Elizabeth Latimer, wife of the younger Robert de
Ufford [see Complete Peerage, 8 (1898): 1 (sub Ufford). The deed and
its accompanying seal was recorded by Robert Glover, and the record is
found in Glover's Collections in the College of Arms, Volume A, folio
22b. Complete Peerage notes that the deed in question is discussed
elsewhere in print in Collectanea Top. et Gen. 5 (1838): 154–155.
Accordiing to that article, attached to the deed in question was the
seal of Elizabeth Latimer — seal of arms: the arms of Ufford Earl of
Suffolk, differenced with a label, impaling the coat of Latimer, and
between the words of the circumscription, ‘Sigillum Elizabethe
Ufford,’ are three shields of the arms of Botetourt. So we have good
heraldic evidence from Elizabeth Latimer's own seal that she was a
member of the Botetourt family. The three "Botetourt" shields of arms
represented on Elizabeth Latimer's seal would presumably stand for
Botetourt, Fitz Otes, and Beauchamp, which combination of arms would
not be easily mistaken.
The weblink for the 1898 version of Complete Peerage is:
The weblink for Collectanea Top. et Gen., Vol. 5 is:
Fortunately there is even better evidence than Elizabeth Latimer's
seal which conclusively proves her parentage. The National Archives
online catalogue includes the abstract of a petition dated 1330 from
William le Latimer, then husband of Elizabeth Botetourt, to the king
and council. In the petition, Elizabeth Latimer is specifically
called the daughter of Maud, widow of John Botetourt. A copy of the
catalogue item is presented below.
National Archives, SC 8/11/518
Petitioner: William Latimer, batchelor.
Addressees: King and council.
Places mentioned: Iselhamstede (Chenies), [Buckinghamshire]. ...
Other people mentioned: Maud [de Butetort (Buteturte)], widow of John
Buteturte; John de Butetort (Buteturte), late husband of Maud
Buteturte; Elizabeth [Latimer], wife of the petitioner, and daughter
of Maud Buteturte; Simon de Bereford.
Nature of request: Latimer states that Maud Buteturte gave to him and
his wife the manor of Chenies from her inheritance. Following Maud's
death, they were ousted by Bereford by colour of his office. Latimer
requests that the king grant, for his service, that which he is by
right able to give, to hold to Latimer and his wife according to the
form of Maud's gift.
Endorsement: It pleases the king that the manor of Chenies with the
appurtenances of which the petition makes mention are to be given to
Latimer and his wife and to the heirs from their bodies begotten, so
that if they die etc. that the manor should return to the king and his
heirs, and this for the service that Latimer has made and will make to
the king, and upon this he should have his charter.
Thus, it appears that the modern edition of Complete Peerage sub
Botetourt, Latimer, and Suffolk is correct as to the identity and
parentage of Elizabeth Botetourt, wife of the younger Robert de
Ufford. However, as noted, all these accounts inexplicably overlook
the heraldic evidence suggesting her parentage from a seal attached to
a deed executed by Elizabeth de Ufford herself, which deed was
discussed in an earlier 1898 edition of Complete Peerage. Why the
amnesia between 1898 and 1953? I have no idea.
In my next post, I'll discuss the evidence that the younger Robert de
Ufford was succeeded as their father's heir apparent by his younger
brother, Thomas de Ufford.
Douglas Richardson
In my previous post, I discussed the heraldic evidence of a deed
executed in 1365-6 by a certain Elizabeth Latimer, allegedly wife of
the younger Robert de Ufford [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1
(1878): 329; Complete Peerage, 8 (1898): 1 (sub Ufford)]. The deed
and its accompanying seal were recorded by Robert Glover, and may be
found in Glover's Collections in the College of Arms, Volume A, folio
22b. This deed and its seal are elsewhere discussed in print in
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, 5 (1838): 154–155.
Accordiing to Coll. Top. et Gen. material, the deed was executed by
Elizabeth Latimer, wife of Ralph (not Robert) de Ufford. Attached to
the deed in question was the seal of Elizabeth Latimer displaying the
arms of Ufford Earl of Suffolk, differenced with a label, impaling the
coat of Latimer, and between the words of the circumscription,
‘Sigillum Elizabethe Ufford,’ are three shields of the arms of
Botetourt.
Due to the configuration of the arms on this seal, the author of the
Coll. Top. et Gen. item expressed his opinion that this seal belonged
to "a daughter of that William le Latimer who married Botetourt's
daughter." This is because the arms of Ufford are impaled with
Latimer, which would normally be the configuration for a Latimer woman
who was the wife of an Ufford husband. Later Waters and Complete
Peerage, 8 (1898):1 (sub Ufford) raised the question that this
Elizabeth Latimer's husband's name might not be Robert de Ufford,
rather than Ralph de Ufford as recorded by Glover; in fact, Waters
accepted that this deed was executed by Elizabeth Botetourt, wife
successively of William le Latimer and Robert de Ufford the younger.
However, the seal itself proves this is not correct as the Ufford arms
are impaling Latimer, meaning that Latimer was the lady's maiden name,
not the name of her former husband. Also, the deed indicates that
Elizabeth Latimer was then wife of Ralph de Ufford. There is no
evidence whatsover that Robert de Ufford the younger was living as
late as 1365-6. In fact, he last occurs in records in 1344, a full
21-22 years before the date of this deed. There is evidence that
Robert de Ufford the younger was dead before 1362.
Having given the matter some thought, I concur with the author in
Coll. Top. et Gen. that this deed was executed by Elizabeth Latimer,
wife of Ralph de Ufford, which woman was a daughter of William le
Latimer and his wife, Elizabeth Botetourt. While the seal can not be
used as evidence that Botetourt was this lady's maiden name (as I
stated in my previous post), due to the appearance of three shields of
the arms of Botetourt on the seal, this is good evidence that
Botetourt was this Latimer lady's mother's maiden name. It was a
common practice in this period for high born women to place their
mother's arms on their seal, usually off to the side of the main set
of arms which displays the woman's arms impaled with that of their
husband.
Douglas Richardson
As I indicated in a previous post, little information is given by
Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 432 (sub Suffolk) regarding Robert de
Ufford the younger, who was Lord Ufford in his own right, and the
eldest son and heir apparent of Sir Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl
of Suffolk. Below is specifically what is said about this individual:
"Robert de Ufford, 1st son and heir apparent; summoned to Parliament
v.p. 25 Feb. (1341/2) 16 Edward III, by writ directed Roberto de
Ufford, le fitz. He married, before 20 August 1337, Elizabeth, widow
of William (Latimer), 3rd Lord Latimer, daughter of John (de
Botetourt), 1st Lord Botetourt, by Maud, daughter of Thonas Fitz
Otes. He died v.p. and s.p. before 29 June 1368." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage apparently had no direct evidence that Robert de
Ufford's wife, Elizabeth, was the daughter of John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt. To hide the lack of documentation, Complete Peerage
directed the reader from the Suffolk account to the Latimer account,
and then from the Latimer account to the Botetourt account. Yet in
none of these accounts is any documentation provided that Elizabeth,
wife of Robert de Ufford, was the daughter of Sir John Botetourt.
Likewise no attempt was made to determine exactly when Robert de
Ufford died.
My research indicates that while he was living, Robert de Ufford the
younger, had a rather active career. He and the Earl of Salisbury
were taken prisoner at the Siege of Lisle in 1340, and sent in irons
to Paris [see Southey, Early Naval Hist. of England (1835): 215–216;
Goldsmid, Chronicles of London 1 ( 1885): 24–25]. He subsequently
distinguished himself at the Siege of Lochmaben Castle in 1341 [see
Ridpath, Border Hist. of England & Scotland (1776): 232]. As stated
by Complete Peerage, he was summoned to Parliament 25 Feb. 1341/2, by
writ directed Roberto de Ufford, le fitz. In 1343 he acknowledged
that he owed a debt of 100 marks to William de Clinton, Earl of
Huntingdon, to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and
chattels in co. Suffolk. He nominated attorneys going beyond seas 10
July 1344. My file notes indicate that he was living in Oct. 1344,
after which he disappears from the records. As such, I assume he died
shortly after this date.
In 1346, Elizabeth (presumably then his widow), was called upon to
provide six men-at-arms and 12 archers for the king’s service [see
Wrottesley, Crécy & Calais (1898): 103]. In 1352 she exchanged the
manor of Cardington, Bedfordshire for the manor of Renhold,
Bedfordshire with her cousin, John Picot, Knt. [see Cal. Patent Rolls,
1350–1354 (1907): 209; List of Inqs. ad Quod Damnum, 2 (PRO Lists and
Indexes 22) (1906): 460]. In 1373–4 she and six others, presumably
her feoffees, were granted permission to grant land in Bedford to the
Prior and convent of Newnham, Bedfordshire. Elizabeth, Lady Latimer,
died 11 April 1384. She left a will dated 21 March 1383/4, proved 26
April 1384, requesting burial in the Priory church of Newnham,
Bedfordshire [see Gibbons, Early Lincoln Wills 1280–1547 (1888): 55
(will of Elizabeth Latimer); Pubs. of Bedfordshire Hist. Rec. Soc. 14
(1931): 96-97 (will of Elizabeth Latimer)]. In none of these records
dated after 1344 is any mention made that she was the wife or widow of
Robert de Ufford. Rather, she is simply styled Elizabeth Latimer.
Waters assumed Robert de Ufford the younger was still living in
1365-6, based on a deed executed on the date by Elizabeth Latimer
recorded by Robert Glover. Yet, as already noted in this thread, the
deed in question indicates that this woman was the wife (not widow) of
Ralph de Ufford. Moreover, the heraldic evidence of this lady's seal
indicates that Latimer was her maiden name.
At Robert de Ufford the younger's death, he was succeeded as his
father's heir apparent by his younger brother, Sir Thomas de Ufford,
K.G. This fact is overlooked by Complete Peerage. Even less
information is given by Complete Peerage, 12 (1) (1953): 432 regarding
Sir Thomas de Ufford. In the Suffolk account, the following
information regarding Thomas is tucked away in footnote i on that
page:
"Thomas is said to have married Elizabeth [Beauchamp], sister of [his
brother] William's 2nd wife (Waters, op. cit., vol. i, page 330,
citing Nichols, Topog. and Geneal., vol. ii, pp. 273, 276." END OF
QUOTE.
My research indicates that Sir Thomas de Ufford was born 22 July 1332
[see Ellis, Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes (Rolls Ser. 13) (1859):
437]. He married Elizabeth de Beauchamp, daughter of Thomas de
Beauchamp, K.G., 11th Earl of Warwick, by Katherine, daughter of Roger
de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Earl of March. They had no issue. In 1354–6
the king paid 3s. 6d. for wine sent to him [see MSS. of the
Corporations of Southampton & Lynn (Hist. MSS Comm. 11th Rpt., App.,
Pt. III) (1887): 219]. On his wife’s Elizabeth’s death, she was
initially buried at Campsey Priory, Suffolk, but on 19 June 1362, her
body was exhumed and reburied at Grey Friars, Ipswich, Suffolk [see
Gransden, Legends, Traditions & Hist. in Medieval England (1992): 284–
285; Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (1767): 487]. In 1367, by
command of Edward the Black Prince, he went on an expedition through
Navarre into Spain. SIR THOMAS DE UFFORD was taken prisoner at
Navarete 3 April 1367; it is suggested by Beltz that he was slain on
this occasion. Whatever the outcome, he died testate before 29 June
1368 (date of his father’s will) [see Beltz, Mems. of the Order of the
Garter (1841): 127–129 (biog. of Sir Thomas Ufford); Top. & Gen. 2
(1853): 271–277 (Ufford ped.); Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878):
327–336].
That Sir Thomas de Ufford was his father's son and heir apparent in
1362, is proven by the record of his wife's reburial which took place
in that year [see Gransden, Legends, Traditions & Hist. in Medieval
England (1992): 284–285]. There Sir Thomas de Ufford is specifically
styled "heredis et filii comitis Suffolchie." This record published
by Gransden may be viewed at the following weblink:
Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (1767): 487 specically states that
Sir Thomas de Ufford's wife, Elizabeth, was "daughter of the earl of
Warwick." I presume he took his information from her monumental
inscription then in existence. For Weever, see the following
weblink:
Additional evidence of Elizabeth's marriage is found in ancient
Beauchamp family windows of St. Mary's, Warwick, which windows record
the arms of the various husbands of the daughters of Thomas de
Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. These windows are mentioned in passing in
Complete Peerage, 12 (2) (1959): 374, footnote h. The evidence of the
Beauchamp windows and Thomas de Ufford's marriage is further discussed
in Topgrapher and Genealogist, 2 (1853): 276, which discussion may be
viewed at the following weblink:
The Beauchamp windows are also discussed in Stapleton, De Antiquis
Legibus Liber: Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc.
34) (1846): ccxxxv, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
Stapleton falls into Dugdale's error of morphing Elizabeth de
Beauchamp, wife of Sir Thomas de Ufford, with her sister, Isabel de
Beauchamp, wife of Sir Thomas de Ufford's younger brother, William de
Ufford, 2nd Earl of Suffolk. In actuality, two Beauchamp sisters
married two Ufford brothers.
The various lapses and irregularites of Complete Peerage covered in
this thread are nothing unusual, or, for that matter, surprising. The
records of the medieval time period are scattered throughout countless
manuscripts, cartularies, registers, books, record repositories, etc.
It is a daunting task for anyone to reassemble the life histories of
individuals in this time period. When additional evidence turns up to
sheds new light on the medieval period, it is a good thing to make it
public knowledge.
Douglas Richardson
In a post earlier this week, I cited a petition dated 1330 available
through the online Catalogue of the National Archives which identifies
Elizabeth, wife of William le Latimer, as the daughter of Maud, widow
of John Botetourt. I've copied the abstract of that petition below
just as it is found in the catalogue.
My previous research indicates that the surname Botetourt does not
take a "de" with it. As such, I was mildly surprised to see that the
modern abstract of this petition refers to "John de Butetort
(Buteturte), late husband of Maud Buteturte." I felt sure that the
original petition would show that Maud's husband would be called "John
Butetort," not "John de Butetort."
As such, I have examined the original petition and have determined
that the modern abstract is in error. The petition (which is in
French) refers to "Maud who was the wife of John Butetort." As I
expected, there is no "de" with Botetourt.
More significantly, I can confirm that the petition specifically
refers to William le Latimer's wife, Elizabeth, as "daughter of the
said Maud." Thus, this petition serves as conclusive evidence of the
Botetourt parentage of Elizabeth, wife of William le Latimer and
Robert de Ufford.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from William le Latimer and his wife,
Elizabeth Botetourt:
Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent.
'
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
SC 8/11/518
Petitioners: William Latimer, batchelor.
Addressees: King and council.
Places mentioned: Iselhamstede (Chenies), [Buckinghamshire].
Other people mentioned: Maud [de Butetort (Buteturte)], widow of John
Buteturte; John de Butetort (Buteturte), late husband of Maud
Buteturte; Elizabeth [Latimer], wife of the petitioner, and daughter
of Maud Buteturte; Simon de Bereford.
Nature of request: Latimer states that Maud Buteturte gave to him and
his wife the manor of Chenies from her inheritance. Following Maud's
death, they were ousted by Bereford by colour of his office. Latimer
requests that the king grant, for his service, that which he is by
right able to give, to hold to Latimer and his wife according to the
form of Maud's gift.
Endorsement: It pleases the king that the manor of Chenies with the
appurtenances of which the petition makes mention are to be given to
Latimer and his wife and to the heirs from their bodies begotten, so
that if they die etc. that the manor should return to the king and his
heirs, and this for the service that Latimer has made and will make to
the king, and upon this he should have his charter.
Covering dates [1330]
hsone
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>>
> Besides these four sons, Earl Robert definitely had a fifth son, John
> de Ufford, clerk, Rector of Hingham, Norfolk, Archdeacon of Suffolk,
> whose existence is inexplicably overlooked by Complete Peerage but was
> correctly included by Waters. John de Ufford left a will dated and
> proved 1375, naming his sister, Maud de Ufford, a nun at Campsey [see
> Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 330]. Maud de Ufford is
> similarly named in the 1381 will of her other brother, William de
> Ufford, 2nd Earl of Suffolk [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1
> (1878): 334–336]. John, Maud, and William are likewise all named as
> children in the 1368 will of their father, Robert de Ufford, 1st Earl
> of Suffolk [see Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 328–329].
Actually the son John de Ufford who was the original subjext of this
post, can be found under UFFORD Vol. XII-2: 152-153
HS