Moving my profile comment here to get more eyes on my theory. Am I completely off track or on to something here? Thanks!
On 22 May 2023 Ashley Jones JD wrote on Ivye-3:
I did some work on his bio, and added/updated some estimated dates. While working on his children and their birthdates, I ran up against a question about his "son and heir," George. There is no George named as Thomas' son in the Visitation, although his oldest son Ferdinando, and two of Elizabeth Malet's sons are named. Ferdinando is noted as "1 sonne," which implies that maybe Elizabeth Keynes only bore one son, Ferdinando.
Now, if Ferdinando was her only son, we would assume the next heir to Thomas would be one of his other sons named in the Visitation, Richard or Hugh, but it's not. His will names "my heir apparent, George Ivye." Did the Visitation forget to note Thomas' second son and ultimate heir? Or is he not Thomas' son?
Ferdinando died before his father, but he left sons, one of whom was his son and heir, George, and this is the line which the Visitation follows: Thomas, whose heir was Ferdinando, whose heir was George.
George was born by the time of Thomas' death, named in Thomas' will, and apparently of age because he received and held the inheritance for his minor(?) brothers. From what I can see, the only source supporting George as son of Thomas is Thomas' will. He does say "my son George" in the codicil, but people were known to be a bit loose with relationship definers at this time. For instance, it would not be a stretch to call a grandson "my son," especially if his father was dead and that grandson was your heir.
So the point here: does it seem likely to anyone else that Thomas' "heir apparent," George, was not his son, but his grandson?
edit: The two George's both have profiles here, and I've added links. Obviously, they would need to be merged if they are, in fact, the same man.
