Richard (Vernon) de Vernon (abt. 1239 - 1321)

The birth date cannot be right if his mother died before 1237.

Richard son of William Vernon and Margery Stockport was living in 4 Edward I (1276) but died without issue and was succeeded by his brother Robert (W A Carrington in Derbyshire Archaeological Journal vol 22 (1900) page 9 https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/022/DAJ_v022_1900_001-029.pdf )

(edited to correct typo in date 1237)

I have Richard as dying sp, which is why his heir was his niece Hawise who married Gilbert le Fraunceys. She was daughter of Richard's brother Robert who died before 1248. Their son Richard (who took the name of de Vernon) married Isabel Hartcla and I have their son as the Richard who is listed as son of this Richard and who married de Vesey.

See notes on Richard son of William and Margery posted on genmed, by Todd Farmerie in 2017 based on the marriage settlement between Richard and John Fraunceys (ca 1248), and the suit against Hawise's mother, Hawise de Brailsford for her daughter's wardship. Also see The feudal history of the County of Derby; (chiefly during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries), starting p. 302

Are there any firm dates on when Richard and Isabel Hartcla married or are they guesses?

Say… who’s wrong here, WikiTree or Wikipedia & Richardson? Here’s their profile for the Richard Vernon who married Margaret Vipont:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_Vernon_(died_1329)

Neither of above appears at first glance to match the line shown by Lewis citing “Burke 1938.” Do Richardson and Burke in fact agree THIS Vernon-Vipont couple were the parents of Richard Vernon-34 who notionally married the mysterious Juliana de Vesci?

Currently, WikiTree is publishing: Richard Vernon-34 lived “1272-1334” & he born when his notional-dad Franceys-17 was five years old, and his notional-mom Harcla-2 was merely 11 years old; and six years before his notional-parents married.

Perhaps we have connected this couple’s son to the wrong parents, or have wrong dates? If not, Wikipedia and/or Richardson are wrong?

Bigger picture, these Vernons are worthy adversaries. Important, numerous, confusing, in some cases lacking evidence, and prone to duplication and mal-merging over the years here on WikiTree and in normally-reliable secondary sources. So, I worry we may need to thoroughly research and thoroughly correct many Vernon profiles all simultaneously to fix a number of garbled lines.

Would it be helpful if I tried to collect a list of problems and/or potential solutions? I’m unable to edit Pre-1500, but I can volunteer what little free time I have these days to focus on Vernon kudzo if a senior Wikitreer or project group finds that useful.

The profile remains confusing to its readers.

Suggestions:

1. disambiguation note at the top of the bio needs in-line citations to sources. Proof. It is currently merely an assertion.
2. research notes about other Richard and his (not this man’s) connections should be removed entirely from this profile, lest they perpetuate the very confusion we are attempting to resolve.
   1. Or if kept, perhaps labelled/presented more clearly as part of the disambiguation proof… rather than just as-is, which looks a bit like a leftover text blob from a previous merge and unmerge process?

Francyes-1 and Vernon-695 appear to represent the same person because: Richard Francyes became Richard Vernon, taking his mother's surname. These duplicates are married to the same woman, and those duplicates also need to be merged.