Cluer are said to be ancestors of Dicey, but there is some doubt.

[Burkes LG] says Thomas Dicey's wife was a Cluer, but there are problems with this:

• [Burkes LG] says the wife of Thomas Dicey, and mother of his children, was Elizabeth Cluer, baptised 1671.
• But if baptised 1671, she could hardly have two daughters already married by 1703. Even one daughter married by 1703 would be a stretch.
• Also Thomas' will says his wife is Margaret.
• Maybe Burke's is wrong and his wife was Margaret Cluer and was born before 1671.

Or maybe Thomas' wife was not even a Cluer at all:

• Thomas Dicey's son William Dicey named his son "Cluer" in 1715.
• That might normally indicate a Cluer ancestry rather than his brother-in-law John Cluer.
• However his father died when he was young, and he seems to have gone to work for his brother-in-law in London. Maybe his brother-in-law was a father figure and it was a tribute to him. So maybe there is no Cluer ancestry. They are just in-laws.

John Cluer, originally of Basingstoke, later of London, married Elizabeth Dicey, daughter of Thomas Dicey of Basingstoke.
Elizabeth Dicey's mother was said to be Cluer of Basingstoke (above). If true, then she and John Cluer must be cousins.
Alternatively, Cluer might just be his family. Dicey has no Cluer ancestry. They are just in-laws.