I have read the Public Record Office copy taken from the National Archives concerning Hugh & Robert Revell and find this report to be extremely sketchy and lacking of proper details. First the report states: That Hugh is a son of Robert Revell of Tiffield and I agree 100% with that statement.
However, you stated in your message that "If there is no Robert son of Hugh and grandson of the early Robert of Swinford, where do you place ‘Robert (Revel) of Tiffield, son of Hugh Revel?"
I'll try to explain more clearly, Robert Revell, father of Hugh, owned land at Tifford as reported by the National Archves record above. Hugh's father is Robert. Hugh's son and Robert's grandson is William of Newbold-Revell. So there is no son of Hugh called Robert. Now to help clarify..
According to British History On Line: A History of the County of Northampton, Volume 5, page 77-98 by Philip Riden, Charles Insley (Editors) found at URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22781http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22781In the reign of Henry I (1100-1135) the two smaller estates in Cosgrove, containing eight small virgates and six small virgates, were held by Robert Revell and William le Brun respectively. These presumably represent the Mortain share of Cosgrove, although of which fees they were held is not stated. (fn. 41)In 1186-7 Robert Revell was in dispute with Adam son of Warin concerning eight virgates of land in Cosgrove, (fn. 42) and in the early 1190s Robert owed three sums of £100, £50 and 20 marks for his lands in Cosgrove, Puxley, Tiffield and 'Watfeld'. (fn. 43)In 1226-9 Robert's son Hugh Revell was involved in litigation concerning 3½ virgates in Cosgrove and Puxley, (fn. 44) and in 1235 Roger Revell held one of the small Mortain fees in Tiffield, Puxley, Cosgrove and Long Buckby. (fn. 45) Robert Revell held the same estate in 1243. (fn. 46) In 1275 it was said that the fee of Robert Revell in Cosgrove, except his demesne, was accustomed to make suit in the hundred court until about twenty years previously, when it was withdrawn without warrant. (fn. 47) This record is very clear; Robert Revell owned Tiffield and eventually passed it to his son, Hugh.
There exists a second record at British History On Line: A History of the County of Northampton, Volume 5, page 208-245 by Philip Riden, Charles Insley (Editors) found at URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22787http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22787In Henry I's (1100-1135) time an under-tenant named Robert Revell held six small virgates in Puxley of the earl of Leicester. (fn. 99) Another Robert Revell owed £100 for his lands in Cosgrove, Puxley and elsewhere in 1191. (fn. 1) Later in the 1190s his son Hugh Revell was in dispute with William Brown over land in Puxley, (fn. 2) as he was with Hugh Coco, his wife Agnes and her sister Alice in 1229. (fn. 3) Hugh Revell also occurs in two early 13th-century deeds relating to premises in Puxley. (fn. 4) In 1236 Roger Revell held the former Mortain fee in Puxley and elsewhere of Richard Keynes, (fn. 5) and by 1242 the tenancy had passed to another Robert Revell. (fn. 6)The Revell estate in Puxley appears to have passed with their lands in Cosgrove to the Spigurnel family, who by 1328, when Henry Spigurnel died, held land of several lords in Puxley.
This particular record can easily cause some confusion for it miss reports that there are two Robert Revell envolved in this property. In fact the first Robert and the second Robert mentioned in this report are one and the same person. And it was Robert's son, Hugh that was later in the dispute over the land.
Now I do not as yet know for certain who the Roger Revell and third Robert Revell were, I am working on that issue now. Regardless, it has no bearing on the Robert & Hugh Revell discussion as to who is whoes father and grandfather.