Once more into the breach - need help working out this pedigree

[steadyrollingman]

Well, as reluctant as I am to even look at other people's versions of my family trees (much less copy them) on Ancestry etc, I have been fascinated by a pedigree of my Smithson ancestors some kind RootsChatter alerted me to the other week:https://smithson.org.uk/2002/03/smithson-notes-and-memoirs/

I'm adding them to my tree in pink text as a framework until I can verify them, as even though the book was published over 100 years ago, it doesn't mean it's accurate. (Though as it states my probable 13x G-grandfather was a man-at-arms at Agincourt, I'm really hoping it is  )

Anyway, I've been struggling to understand the author at various points, most notably the following section. Can anyone tell me what relation the first bloke, William Le Smythsonne, is to Peter at the end pls? And any generations in-between? I think I'm right in saying Peter was descended from the second-mentioned William, but that par is a bit 'sludgy' - any thoughts?

"William Le Smythsonne of Thornton Watlas, near Bedale, who was defendant in a plea for depasturing cattle at Thornton Watlas in 1265 (49 Hen. III.), had two sons, of whom:

Robert Smytheson was residing at Thornton Watlas in 1286 (14 Ed. I.).
Wm. le Smytheson lived at Kerperby in 20 Ed. I., was married, and had issue.
The elder son, Robert Smytheson of Thornton Watlas, who married – -, and had issue (together with two other sons, Wm. of Ainstable, Co. Cumberland, who paid subsidy 1 Ed. III., and was a defendant in a plea of debt 18 Ed. III., and Roger Smithson of Lynton, 1 Ed. III., living 18 Ed. III., whose son, Thomas Smithson – married, and had issue – plaintiff in a plea of land, 40 Ed. III.) an elder son, viz.:

Peter le Smytheson of Thornton Watlas, who paid subsidy in 1 Ed. III. (1327) ‘ married –, and had issue two sons"

(I'm assuming things like 40 Ed. III mean 'in the 40th year of the reign of Edward III', but pls correct me if I'm misinterpreting that too).

[mckha489]

I think Peter is Thomas’s son.


Gen 1.  William
Gen 2. Robert. And William
Gen 3 (sons of Robert)  William & Roger, plus two other sons
Gen 4 Thomas (son of Roger)
Gen 5 Peter, son of Thomas

See later post

Yes, re those dates.
Handy conversion calculator here.   https://aulis.org/Calendar/Regnal_Years.html

[GR2]

The three direct generations are:

William of TW

his elder son = Robert of TW

Robert's eldest son = Peter of TW

[mckha489]

Actually,  now I have looked at the dates more closely,

Roger and Peter both alive and presumably adult 1 Ed III.

So I am crossing out my first suggestion!

But I still think it reads as if Peter is Thomas’s son although he can’t be.


Edited.

Editing again.

I’ve finally seen the brackets.
So now I agree with GR2

Phew!

[steadyrollingman]

Grr, just noticed I must have been even more confused than I thought - I was actually thinking Peter was son of Thomas, but wrote William 

Anyway, thx - yes, I think it becomes much clearer if you remove the text in brackets re Peter's dad, ie:
The elder son, Robert Smytheson of Thornton Watlas, who married – -, and had issue …  an elder son, viz.:

Peter le Smytheson ...

It's just that suggestion/reading that Robert Smytheson might've been Kerperby William's son, but that's not the author's style as I've seen elsewhere, so I think you're right - Peter is Robert's son.

It's also that line "and had issue (together with two other sons…" that kind of threw me. Wonder if the issue in question was a daughter or daughters - just seemed a strange way to put it. Anyway, although I mentioned verifying all this, I pretty much will have to take the author's word for it here though, given the absence of parish records and my lack of Latin / OE skills for where records do exist.

Thanks for the link too, bookmarked.

EDIT: Actually, no, that issue line makes sense now I think - the two 'other sons' are Peter's younger's brothers who just get a mention in passing...