Brice Calggett clinches the Pichard-Bluet ancestry with:

From: bcl....@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice")
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:08:21 +0000 (UTC)

I believe that Douglas Richardson's post of December 16 stated the Pichard descent correctly. Sir Roger Pichard (d. 1296/7), of Tretower (Straddewy) Castle, Breconshire; Almeley, Ocle Pychard, etc., Herefordshire, and Thirleston (Thurkelston), Northumberland (wife Joan), was succeeded in his estates by his son John Pichard (d. 1305/6) (wife Katherine, dau. of Sir Reynold Fitz Piers), who was succeeded by his son, Roger Pichard (c. 1290-1308) (wife Isabel), who was succeeded by Amice, his (the younger Roger's) sister, wife of Ralph Bluet.

The key document is reproduced in Mary Cooke's _The Picards or
Pychards_ (1878), page 36:

"Feet of Fines Ed. 2. Hereford. (File 1 to 25.) No. 8, 2 Ed. 2.
1308. - Between Peter son of Roger Pychard of Straddewy Plaintiff,
and Ralph Bluet and Amicia his wife Defendants, of the manor of Almaly
with the appurts., and the advowson of the church of the said manor.
Whereupon a plea, etc., to wit that the aforesaid Peter acknowledged
the said manor and advowson to be the right of the said Amicia, And for
this acknowledgment, etc., the same Ralph and Amicia granted to the
said Peter the said manor and advowson which Joan, who had been the wife
of Roger Pychard, held in dower of the inheritance of the said Amicia
on the day on which this agreement was made, and which after the decease
of same Joan to the said Ralph and Amicia and the heirs of the same Amicia
ought to revert, after the decease of the said Joan wholly to remain to the
said Peter and the heirs of his body, To be held of the said Ralph and
Amioia and the heirs of the said Amicia for ever, Rendering yearly one
rose for all services, etc..... And if it shall happen that the said
Peter die without heirs of his body, then after the decease of the said
Peter, the aforesaid manor and advowson wholly shall revert to the said
Ralph and Amicia and the heirs of the said Amicia, quit of other heirs
of the said Peter, To be held of the chief lords of that fee by the services
which to the same belong for ever. And this agreement was made in the
presence of the said Joan, and she did fealty to the said Peter in the
said Court. Hereford."

Thus Amice is found as heir to the family estates. Peter, who was John's
younger brother, acquired Almeley only by a subinfeudation from Amice,
in which he expressly acknowledged her right. If Amice had been a sister
of John, Peter would have been the heir after the younger Roger's death.
Chronology forbids that Amice was daughter of the younger Roger. Therefore
Amice was daughter of John.

I am unclear whether the pleading from The Genealogist NS 12:29-30 expressly
says that Amice was Sir Roger's daughter, or whether that is an inference
drawn by the editor. If it does say so, it is wrong, which isn't particularly
surprising. This document dates from 46 Ed. III, many years after the events
described. The gist of the pleading is that Roger Pichard gave the manor of
Thirleston to Amice. The legal position would have been the same whether
Amice was Roger's daughter or granddaughter, or if Amice's grantor was
John rather than Sir Roger. The important thing to the plaintiff, Elizabeth
(Bluet) Picot, was that she was entitled to Thirleston by a grant to her
great-grandmother Amice. She (or her lawyer) could easily have been confused
as to the relationship between Sir Roger and Amice.
_________________________________________________________