Re: Edward, b. ca. 1553, Cliburn, Westm., Eng.; son of Edmund
I believe that I have found strong evidence that Edward was indeed the son of Edmund.Through the invaluable and gracious assistance of William "Guy" Fletcher and Thomas Grindley, I have been able to review the following.
Inquisition post mortem ("IPM") at Bedall (modern-day Bedale), Yorkshire, England, of Richard Cliburn, 1588
"… .by his deed dated 1 October 1576 [18 Eliz], he granted to [4 certain men:Sandfurth, Conyers, Doddesworth and “Thomas Clibburne of Hayclosse, in Cumberland, gentleman”] the said manor of Clibburne to the work and use of Edmund Clibburne son and heir of Richard, and the heirs male of the body of Edmund by Grace his wife, with successive remainders as following:to the heirs male of the body of Edmund; to Gerard Clibburne, second son of Richard Clibburne, and the heirs male of his body; to the heirs male of the body of the said Richard Clibburne; to John Clibburne and the heirs male of his body; to Thomas Clibburneand the heirs male of his body; to William Clibburne and the heirs male of his body; and to Edward Clibburne and the heirs male of his body; and to the right heirs of Edmund Clibburne, in perpetuity."
1.Richard’s purpose was to restrict inheritance to males (prohibiting heiresses);this created a “fee tail male”.
2.First in line were Richard’s first son (and heir) Edmund and his sons (if any) by his wife, Grace (Bellingham) Cliburn, and then any sons of those sons, etc.
3.Second in line (if the first failed for want of male heirs) were sons of Edmund by some possible wife subsequent to Grace.
4.Third in line (if the first two failed for want of male heirs) were Richard’s second son Gerard and his sons (if any).
5.Fourth in line (if the first three failed for want of male heirs) were “heirs male of the body of the said Richard Clibburne”; i.e., if Richard were to have any more sons (after Edmund and Gerard), or male heirs of any such son(s).
6.Fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth in line, successively (if the prior lines had failed for want of male heirs) were John (and heirs), William (and heirs), Thomas (and heirs) and Edward (and heirs).NONE of these four was specifically identified as a son of Richard.
7.Under a “fee tail male”, if Richard’s own male line died out, then the land would pass to Richard’s next younger brother and his male heirs, and if that male line died out, then to Richard’s second next younger brother, etc.
8.IF John, William, Thomas and Edward were sons of Richard, they would have been covered by the fourth succession (item 5, above), and it would have been superfluous to address them in these subsequent items.
9.By 1576 (the date of the deed), Richard and Eleanor (Lancaster) Cliburn were probably reasonably certain that Eleanor was too old to bear more children.Therefore, it was probably only the possibility that Eleanor might die, Richard might re-marry (to a woman of child-bearing age), and Richard might father additional sons, that was intended to be covered by the fourth succession (item 5, above).
10.Conclusion:the John, William, Thomas and Edward were NOT Richard’s own sons, but his younger brothers, in that birth order (i.e., sons of Edmund and Eleanor (Layton) Cliburn).
For a discussion of the “fee tail male”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail
“Traditionally, a fee tail was created by words of grant in a deed or will: "to A and the heirs of his body". The crucial difference between the words of conveyance and the words that created a fee simple ("to A and his heirs") is that the heirs "in tail" must be the children begotten by the landowner. It was also possible to have "fee tail male", which only sons could inherit . . . . . The Statute of Westminster II, passed in 1285, created and stereotyped this form of estate. The new law was also formally called the statute De Donis Conditionalibus (Concerning Conditional Gifts). Fee tail was abolished by the Law of Property Act in England (as a legal estate) in 1925.”