582 Tropenell Memoranda. 



of a tower there (per servicium custodiendi quandam turrim ibidem) 

 for forty days in war time, and the said lords of Troubrygge hold of 

 the king in chief by knight service. 



Two and a half acres of the said land are held of William 

 Brydesyerd by knight service, and are worth 5d. yearly. The said 

 William holds the same of the abbess of Shaftesbury, and she of the 

 king in chief in pure alms. 



There remain to the said Margaret, over and above this gift, a 

 messuage and two carucates of land in Little Chaldefelde, which 

 are held of the prior of Worspryng by knight service and are worth 

 100s. yearly. The said land suffices, &c. The sum of the extent 

 9s. 7d. I.P.M. (A.Q.D.) 22 Edward III. (M. numbers) No. 51. 



We have alluded above to the extreme difficulty of distinguishing 

 between persons of the name of Percy. In the case of George 

 Percy, of West Chaldfeld, we possess the " extent " of his lands 

 when he was accused of aiding and abetting the earl of Kent. It 

 seemed reasonable accordingly to attribute to him and to his son 

 John the Patent Eoll entries which show " George Percy " and 

 " John son of George Percy " accompanying that earl abroad. There 

 are, however, a whole series of parallel entries relating to a George 

 Percy, " king's yeoman," and to John his son, which were rejected. 

 In the case of the " king's yeoman " his son John is also — as in 

 the case of John, son of George, of Chalfield — married to an 

 " Elizabeth," a great heiress, and it will be remembered that the- 

 "Elizabeth" at Chalfield was abducted, which suggests that she, 

 too, was an heiress. John, the son of George, the king's yeoman, 

 appears to have left a son, William, and this William at any rate 

 does not fit in with such facts as we possess relating to the subse- 

 quent descent of West Chalfield. On the other hand it is con- 

 ceivable that the John at West Chalfield was not the eldest son. 

 The identity of the king's yeoman and of his son, and of the descent 

 of the son's estates jure uxoris, have baffled the historians of at any 

 rate two counties, and a summary of the evidence is appended here, 

 as the safer course in a case in which the identities remain, after 

 much enquiry, entirely doubtful. 



