Correct deciphering "base begotten"?

[Buffnut453]

While transcribing a last will and testament for Roger Rutter (d 1629) that I believe ties into my family tree, I came across the attached phrase which I believe reads "bequeath unto my daughter Margaret Morecroft base begotten." 

I believe Margaret was my 9th great-grandmother, although using the name Margaret Rutter at her marriage in Croston, Lancashire, on 18 June 1634 to William Harsnepp.  The will mentions a Thomas Harsnepp and a John Harsnepp so, clearly, there were some relations pre-existing between the families.

Did I get the transcription right?  It seems like there aren't any other children as the only other named person is Roger's wife, Jennet, whom he married in 1626.  He may have had a previous wife, named Jane.

[horselydown86]

Your transcription is right other than the spelling of Margaret's surname, which is actually:  Morccrofte

[Buffnut453]

Thanks.  Basically, it means I'm stumped trying to find Margaret's mother. 

There's a Christening record for Margaret Rutter, daughter of Roger, in Aughton on 4 June 1613 which I believe pertains to this person.  Apart from Margaret, I can find just one other Christening record for a Richard Rutter, son of Roger, in Croston on 8 Aug 1595.  That's a long time gap between children, assuming we're dealing with the same Roger Rutter.

The 1595 Christening probably aligns with the marriage of a Roger Rutter to Jane Yate in Croston on 17 Jan 1592/93.  However, it's not clear whether we are dealing with the same Roger Rutter.  The will mentions £10 owed to Roger from a Richard Rutter but it's not stated whether Richard is his son, and the only provisions in the will are for Jennet, Roger's "wellbeloved" wife and his illegitimate daughter, Margaret. 

'Tis a puzzlement!