APPENDIX. 83 



P<r^e323, 46 Edwd. Ill, fA.D. 1373-4;. Xo. 76.— Joha uxor 

 "Willi de Wliityiigton, Stoke Archer'" raaner^, GIouc. 



VOL. ni. 



Page 235, No. 34, 22 Richard II., {A.D. 1399.)— Paunteleye unum 

 feodum per Willim de Whytinton. Glouc. et March Wallie. 



Page 303, No. 49, 7 Henry /F.— Cecilia uxorGuidonis de Whiting- 

 ton soror Rici Browning, &c. Probat''' etat''', Glouc. 



TOL. IV. 



Page 454, No. 16. — Thomas de Cobberleye filius et hajres Johannae 

 quje fuituxor WiUielmi de Whityngtondefuncti. Probatioaetatis, Glouc. 



VOL. IT. 



Page 472, No. 1, Anno 19, Hen. F/.— Guide Whityngton Armiger. 

 "Xullas-^ tenuit terr^ neque ten^ in comitatu." Glouc. et March 

 Wallie. 



Page 206, No. 1. — ''Escaet^ de Anno Viginti Henrici Sexti, Guide 

 Whytington. Xull'' tenuit terr^, Hereford. 



Page 96, No. 32, 3 Henrg VI. — Paunteley 1 feed per liYillfn de 

 ■Whitington, Glouc. et March Wallie. 



e She must have held this as her jointure from her second husband, Thomas 

 de Berkeley, as -vre find that Stoke Archer, or as it is commonly called Stoke 

 Orchard, in the Parish of Cleeve, Gloucestershire, became again the jointure estate 

 of Margaret, widow of Thomas de Berkeley, the son of the former. — Cal. Inquis. 

 post mortem, Vol. III. p. 304, Xo. 22, 7 Henry lY. 



Margareta quae fuit uxor Thomaj Berkeley de Coverley («. e. Cubberley, or 

 Cobcrley,) (inter alia.) 



Stoke Archer tertia pars manerii, i q^q^; 



Coberley tertia pars manerii, \ 



/ ^ It is difficult to reconcile these two Inquests, which seem to refer to the same 

 person, with Sir Eobert Atkyns' account, unless this Guy de "Wliittington be a 

 difierent person from the Sir Guy who was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire, 6 Henry 

 YI. and 12 Henry YI. It is possible that he may have been another brother of 

 Richard, his having " nullas terr" neque ten' in comitatu," (no lands or tenements 

 in the County,) would seem to render this probable ; thus he would have been 

 an uncle of Sir Guy, for the latter could not be said to have had "no lands 

 or tenements," in as much as he possessed Pauntlcy and Staunton in his own 

 right, and Notgrove, Lye, and Eodborough in right of his wife. If we are to 

 consider the Annulet, in Sir Richard Whittington's coat of arms, as an indication 

 of the position he held in the family, we should place him as ffth son, Icaying 

 one more son not accounted for in our pedigree, besides this Guy. 



