MAR suggests, 28 Nov 2005 on s.g.m, this pedigree from the Plea Rolls:

1. William de Gloucester [?goldsmith of London]; married Willelma.
Issue:

2. Henry de Gloucester, alderman and goldsmith of London; died c1332;
left a will; married [Margaret - apologies, source not currently to
hand]; issue:

3. Joan de Gloucester, daughter and heir; married Richard de Cornwall.
Issue:

4. John de Cornwall, married Elizabeth.  Issue:

5. Alice de Cornwall, daughter and heir; died 1416; married firstly
Henry Frowyk; married secondly Thomas Charlton; issue by both
marriages.

Subsequently, 28 Nov 2005 on s.g.m, he added:

From the earlier posts regarding the de Gloucester family, ancestral to
the Cornwall, Charlton and Freville families, the following stemma of
the de Basings can be drafted:

1. ... de Basing

2a. Adam de Basing; issue:

3a. Thomas de Basing, of London; died without issue c1275; left a will,
annulled by the Court of Hustings, 1276.

3b. (daughter), dead by 1276; married Henry le Waleys.  Issue:

4. Henry le Waleys, minor coheir to his uncle Thomas de Basing, 1276

3c. (daughter)  dead by 1276; married as his first wife William de
Hadestock of London.  Issue:

4. Joan de Hadestock, minor coheir to her uncle Thomas de Basing, 1276

2b. ... de Basing; issue:

3a. Saloman de Basing, benefactor to St Helen's, Bishopsgate

3b. Sir Thomas de Basing, benefactor to St Helen's, Bishopsgate; will
1300

3c. Willelma de Basing, married William de Gloucester, goldsmith:
issue:

4a. Dionysia de Gloucester, nun at St Helen's, Bishopsgate

4b. Henry de Gloucester, alderman and goldsmith of London; will 1332;
issue:

5a. Thomas de Gloucester, dead by 1340; married Matilda, her husband's
coexecutrix in 1340

5b. Elizabeth de Gloucester, a nun at St Helen's, Bishopsgate

[5c. Joan de Gloucester, married Richard de Cornwall]

Some source material:

"502. An assize comes in the husting to declare whether Thomas son of
Adam de Basinges, uncle of Henry, son of Henry le Waleys and of Joan
daughter of William de Hadestok, was seised in his demesne as of fee of
2 marks rent with appurtenances in the parish of St Andrew Holborn on
the day on which he died and whether [Henry and Joan are the next
heirs]. This rent is held by Richard de Stanes goldsmith who previously
came to the husting and vouched to warranty Ralph de Pelham parson of
the church of St. Michael Bassinshaw who is not of the liberty of the
City, but a stranger, so that the plea was respited until the coming of
the justices. Ralph comes and freely warrants Richard. He says that
Henry and Joan can claim no right in the tenements by hereditary
descent from Thomas because Thomas in his will proved and enrolled in
the husting according to the custom of the City bequeathed them to
Ralph, so he seeks judgment. Henry and Joan say that Thomas could not
bequeath the rent to anyone because his father Adam bequeathed it to
Thomas to hold of himself and the heirs of his body and he died without
issue. They say that through their guardians they sued in the husting
and produced there Adam's charter of feoffment and that by judgment of
the husting the will was annulled in this respect, so the rent cannot
and should not remain with Ralph. Ralph cannot deny this. Therefore it
is adjudged that Henry and Joan recover seisin and Ralph is in mercy.

"517. Richard de Ashwy executor of the will of Thomas son of Adam de
Basing was attached to answer Henry le Waleys and William de Hadestok,
citizens of London, guardians of Thomas' lands and heirs, on a plea
that he return to them charters concerning rents of 116s 4d due to the
heirs, which he has withheld from them to the great damage and
disinheritance of the heirs. Richard comes and acknowledges that he has
four of Thomas' charters, one of which he at once returns to them, but
he says they should not have the others as they make mention of 3Ω
marks rent which Thomas bequeathed to him in his last will and of which
he was seised until Henry ejected him. The guardians say that the rent
was the right of Adam de Basing, Thomas' father, who bequeathed it to
Thomas to hold for himself and the heirs of his body only. Because
Thomas died without issue, the guardians in the name of the heirs, went
to the husting where Richard with his co-executors and others to whom
Thomas had bequeathed other rents wanted to prove Thomas' will, and
opposed probate. Because of this objection on good grounds the will was
annulled by judgment of the husting. So he seeks judgment whether
Richard can justly claim to retain the charters. Thereupon the mayor
and aldermen come and put on record that the will was annulled before
them; it is the custom of the City that if anyone shall have bequeathed
land or rent and the will is afterwards annulled by judgment in the
husting, nothing more can accrue to the legatee from such a legacy, nor
need the heir of the testator proceed against the legatee in the
husting to recover seisin by a judgment; on the contrary, the heir can
lawfully put himself in the seisin of that legatee; just as it is not
necessary when a will has been confirmed and proved in the husting for
the legatee to sue the heirs of the testator if they were in seisin.
Richard acknowledges that the rent at one time was Adam's and was
bequeathed by Thomas to Richard and that afterwards the will was
annulled in the husting. He cannot deny that the custom of the City is
as stated. So it is adjudged that Richard return the charters to the
guardians to be kept with the other charters in wardship until the
heirs come of age. And Richard is in mercy because he did not return
them sooner.

"518. Robert de Rokesle gives Ω mark for licence to agree with Thomas
de Basing [NB i.e. the nephew and not the deceased son of Adam de
Basing]"

An item probably relating to William de Hadestock's second wife (NB she
was living in 1276, whereas William's daughter Joan was then coheir to
her uncle Thomas de Basing, meaning that her mother - William de
Hadestock's first wife - was then dead]:

"519. William de Hadestok and his wife Joan complain of James de
Montibus that on Friday after the feast of St. Mary Magdalene 53 Henry
III [26 July 1269] he went to their house in London in the ward of
Simon de Hadestok [Queenhithe ward], broke down the door and entered;
he broke Joan's finger and committed other outrages against her against
the peace, whence they say that they have suffered loss and damage to
the value of £100 and they bring suit. James comes and denies force
and injury. He acknowledges that he went there with Stephen de
Edesworth, constable of the Tower of London, whom the king had ordered
by writ to deliver to James, Bartholomew son and heir of Jollan de
Durham who should have been in his wardship. He says that he did not go
with any other purpose to their house or commit any trespass against
them and puts himself upon the ward and that of Henry de Coventre
[Vintry ward] as those nearest. William and Joan [do] likewise. The
wards come and say in the faith in which they are bound to the king
that James with many others came with force and arms with a king's
bailiff to Joan's house before William married her and that after he
had entered the house, he closed the door and tore her dress down to
the navel, threw her to the ground and raped her, breaking her finger.
So it is adjudged that James be committed to gaol until he has
satisfied William and Joan for their damages, which are assessed at
100s. by the wards".

From: 'Civil pleas 'extra coronam': (nos 470-523)', The London eyre of
1276
______________________________________________________