Dear friends, I am trying to find the source for the following document cited in Rerum Britannicarum Vol 60 p.602 Ed TW Campbell 1873 "1486 12 Jan. Henry &. To our Trusty and welbeloved servant Nicholas Leventhorpe receiver of our Honnours of Pountfret....parcell of or Duchie of Lancaster in our county of York ........" URL https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D_hDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA602&dq=Richard+Pek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mT5GVdnJBsz_aJD7gOgH&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Pek&f=false Thank you so much, Peter

On 8/06/2017 8:55 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 > <snip> >> In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et > Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m > maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without > mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium > was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of > Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de > Braiose's grandson. >> Peter Stewart >> > ------------------------------- > Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life. > > It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars. It's interesting how different (not to say odd) ways of treating sources have become common in different scholarly traditions - for instance, in Russia where there is precious little source material from before the 14th century they tend to take every word (indeed every letter) in late-medieval and early-modern chronicles as a national treasure. In England, overwhelmed with administrivia from the 13th century owards, they blithely omit phrases that initiates are expected to take for granted while yet feeling a need to standardise names for readers who may be thrown by variety. Peter Stewart

On 8/06/2017 7:15 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:15:00 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead >> of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, >> I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different >> line of research. >> >> On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: >> >>> More comments >>> >>> I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit >>> either the space or the sense. >>> >>> "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to >>> retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she >>> must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles >>> was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would >>> Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over >>> Gloucestershire land? " >>> >>> Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. >>> Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - >>> http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a >>> perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. >> The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to >> 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in >> Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. >> >> Peter Stewart > You appear to have missed the last paragraph Peter. > > " But only days after meeting the king to conclude the settlement, Giles fell ill and died in Gloucester. It is difficult not to suspect foul play. The de Braose lands reverted back to the crown." Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that, between them, they could even chew gum at the same time. From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? Peter Stewart

According to the Latin Assistant dictionary, avus means forefather or ancestor in addition to grandfather. Was it sometimes used in this broader sense in this era? Chris Phillips quoted the text of the 1305 inquisition that Emma Mason sites as evidence that Berta Braose married William (I) de Beauchamp (_Cal. of Inq. Misc._, i, no. 1971). See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-09/1033304740 The part with the conflicting evidence about who Berta married is this: William de Breouse, long since deceased, who once held the manor of Tettebury together with the said rent and other tenements belonging to the said manor of the king in chief by service of a knight's fee, gave the said rent a hundred and sixty years and more past to William de Bello Campo, great grandfather of the said earl, and Berta, daughter of the said William de Brewose, in free marriage. "A hundred and sixty years and more past" would be 1145 or earlier. That would be consistent with a marriage of Berta to William (I) de Beauchamp. "Great-grandfather of the said earl" would be consistent with a marriage to William (II) de Beauchamp. Emma Mason concluded that the error was in the "great-grandfather" statement, not in the "160 years and more past" statement. Mason cites the following sources for her statement that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp and mother of his sons William and Walter was named Amice (not Berta): Doris May Stenton, ed., _Pleas before the King or his Justices 1198-1212_, i, Seldon Soc., lxvii, 268, c.2864 F. Palgrave, ed., _Rotuli Curiae Regis_, 2 vols., Rec. Comm., 1835, i, 257, ii, 20 _Curia Regis Rolls_, i, 212 I. J. Sanders, _English Baronies_ (Oxford, 1960), 75 B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. HathiTrust has the book edited by Stenton, but with limited search only: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007128484 Google has it with snip view, but I haven't succeeded in getting the cited document (p. 268) to appear in a snip: https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ The following searches show two views of p. 283: https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Amicia+quondam+Bello https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&q=Amicia+uxor+Willelmi+de+Bello And the following search shows the index entry for the cited document: https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=c.2864 The citations to _Rotuli Curiae Regis_ are here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028541376;view=1up;seq=405 (mentions a lawsuit by Amic' de Bello Campo against Will' de Brause, but does not further identify Amicia) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028541368;view=1up;seq=54 (I don't see relevant info on this page.) The citation to _Curia Regis Rolls_ is on HathiTrust but it just states that the heir of William is within age and in the custody of William de Braose: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112203984580;view=1up;seq=234 The same info from another roll is transcribed on p. 246: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112203984580;view=1up;seq=268 Sanders (p. 75-76) does not mention the wives of William (I) and William (II) de Beauchamp in his section about Salwarpe. Has the text of B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. been presented somewhere in this thread?

Hello, I stumbled upon this group by accident when searching for my Fernandez ancestors, and some of you seem educated in the history of Spanish nobility. I figure maybe some of you can help me with direction of where to go. My grandfather comes from Panama where his father was an ambassador and I believe secretary of the interior. He always told me his ancestors were sent to Panama to help govern and his ancestors before that were sent to Colombia before that by the Queen of Spain to help govern. He comes from a noble family of Spain. My grandfather grew up going to the presidents palace in Panama, being told that Arnulfo Arias Madrid was a relative (my grandfather and father are named after him). When he was taken by his father to Costa Rica for months for "vacation" all the dignitaries and president would come to their home to greet and welcome them. In 1960, his father travelled to Spain to locate the family coat of arms but died in mysterious circumstances before he could present it to our family. My grandfather, Arnulfo Fernandez (b. 1929 Panama) is son of Miguel Angel Fernandez (b. 1898 Colombia/Panama), son of Pedro Fernández Montealegre (b. 1859, costa rica), son of Domingo Evaristo Fernández (I'm 99% sure). I have no way of knowing the Fernández line past that. I can't find documentation. Is there a place that all the noble coat of arms are kept and who they were awarded to? I believe if I can find all the Fernández men who were awarded family crests, then I can eventually determine which is my relative. p.s. My grandfather's mother, who was a Pretto-Seixas, was 100% Jewish, her lines being traced for more than 1,000 years. We believe the Fernández line is also Jewish. Thank you, -Michelle Fernandez/Forester

Lamentably late (other pressures having intervened) & well out of order but just to round out the background to Doug's appetizer — > Fifteen years ago (Sep 2002!) we had a discussion on this list about the Braose Beauchamp marriage between Bertha and William or Walter. I joined in with Chris Phillips, Cris Nash and John Ravilious trying to come to a considered conclusion, which I think we did - That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197). — a year later this posting followed the sequence he had in mind. Cheers all. Cris > From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Parentage of Matilda de Braose (St Valery) > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:47:13 +0100 > To: [email protected] > > “Peter Stewart wrote: > > Perhaps you have different William de Beauchamps in mind - I think > > Bertha de Braose was the wife of William I, lord of Elmley, who was > > sheriff of Worcester from 1155, sheriff of Gloucester in 1156-7, > > sheriff of Hereford 1160-67, sheriff of Warwick 1158-9, and reportedly > > died in 1170. > > > > His heir, Bertha's son William II (died in Normandy 1197), married > > first a sister (name unknown) of Odo, the tenant of Salwarpe, and > > secondly a lady named Amicia, the mother of his sons. The elder of > > these was William III, known as 'Wilekin' (died 1211/12) who married > > Joan (daughter of Thomas, seigneur of Saint-Valery & Adela of > > Ponthieu) and was succeeded in Emley by his brother Walter. > > > > But please note, this information is not from a close study of the > > family, just from old notes citing, amongst other secondary works, > > Emma Mason's 'Legends of the Beauchamps' Ancestors: The Use of > > Baronial Propaganda in Medieval England', _Journal of Medieval > > History_ 10 (1984), and her edition of _The Beauchamp Cartulary > > Charters 1100-1268_ (London, 1980). I am not able to check either of > > these at present. > > Yes - Mason does give this identification (I had seen only the Beauchamp > Cartulary, and will make a note to look at the other reference you mention > too). She has been followed in this by Keats-Rohan, in Domesday Descendants. > > Essentially, the document identifying Bertha - an early 14th-century > inquisition - does place her as the wife of the William who died in 1197, > but dates the marriage to the mid 12th century. This is one of the reasons > for which Mason moves it back a generation. But it seems clear that the land > involved would not have come to the Braoses before the 1190s, so that the > inquisition has overestimated the lapse of time. > > The other reason for moving Bertha a generation earlier was an undated > charter for Westwood Priory, given by an Anicia, lady of Salwarp, who is the > widow of one William de Beauchamp and the mother of another. Elsewhere she > is called Amice de Mumby. Mason identified her as the widow of William de > Beauchamp who d. 1197, presumably in the absence of another candidate. > > It appears she could perhaps be the same as Amice, the wife of Eudo de Mumby (d. c. 1197). The only suggestion I can make is that the Amice/Anice of the charter was the widow of a different William de Beauchamp, perhaps before > marrying Eudo (whose son and heir was a minor in 1197). > > There's more discussion of this in a thread entitled "Early Beauchamps (was: > Second update to DP and DD amendments)" in July this year. > > Chris Phillips”

From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 <snip> > In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de Braiose's grandson. > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life. It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars. Matt Tompkins

On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before! > > A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law. > > The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement. > > Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer. > It appears that Berta must have died before 1212. > > Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then? From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> Sent: 07 June 2017 03:16 > Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. > > First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word longer than "avus". > > Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually "socer", rather than "socerus". > > Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of William de Braiose. > If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225. If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine? > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- It would be possible, and not at all unusual, for a remarried widower to be still holding his deceased former wife's maritagium in three situations. First, if a child had been born to the marriage, in which case the curtesy of England would give him the right to remain in possession of her property until his own death (tenure in maritagium did not alter this). Second, if, as was common, the grant in maritagium had been made to the wife AND her spouse - in which case the husband would be holding after her death in his own right. Third, if the grant in maritagium had been made to the husband alone and his heirs (which did happen, though it became less common after c1200) - in this case the husband's ownership is absolute. I think Doug is right that this fine looks like the compromise of a dispute over the entire manor. Walter de Beauchamp has claimed it all (justly, it seems to me) but has been forced to accept a division with Reynold de Braose. However I also think the faded word in the original document is far more likely to be 'avus' than 'socerus', both as a better fit for the faded word and because 'socerus' was a very rarely used term (if it was in use at all). If the word is avus then Walter is claiming as Bertha's son, not her widower - which is presumably why the action which the fine terminated was one of mort d'ancestor. (Though if the original grant in maritagium had been made to William de Beauchamp alone, Walter would be claiming as William's son.) Matt Tompkins

Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different line of research. On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > More comments > > I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit > either the space or the sense. > > "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to > retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she > must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles > was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would > Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over > Gloucestershire land? " > > Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. > Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - > http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a > perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:15:00 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead > of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, > I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different > line of research. > > On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > > More comments > > > > I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit > > either the space or the sense. > > > > "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to > > retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she > > must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles > > was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would > > Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over > > Gloucestershire land? " > > > > Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. > > Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - > > http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a > > perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. > > The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to > 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in > Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. > > Peter Stewart You appear to have missed the last paragraph Peter. " But only days after meeting the king to conclude the settlement, Giles fell ill and died in Gloucester. It is difficult not to suspect foul play. The de Braose lands reverted back to the crown." I welcome discussion by personal email too! But this forum leaves a record for others to read. Doug Thompson

On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: >> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. > You may be right but I should make a few more comments. > >> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before >> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word >> longer than "avus". > I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus. > >> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually >> "socer", rather than "socerus". > I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated. Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*? >> Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine > They are about completely different subjects. I meant where they agree is about Walter being married to Berta. > > that >> also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de >> Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of >> this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de >> Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The >> 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of >> William de Braiose. > "ut liberum maritagium" in my understanding automatically limits rights to heirs of that marriage. Then why would this need to be spelled out in the 1227 fine from Sele priory? >> If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to >> daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold >> property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after >> her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225. >> If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either >> have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir >> if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried >> widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with >> rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine? > That's the point of the fine. It's not a confirmation of the maritagium. It's a new grant of land to Walter by Reginald to replace that which Walter was still holding irregularly in Reginald's view. In return Walter quitclaims the half of the manor of Tetbury which he had been given at the time of the marriage. > > Note that Walter would not have returned the maritagium to William de Braose because he was exiled and died years before. It is only now that Reginald has regained rights to the family lands that he is able to claim back the half-manor of Tetbury. But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over Gloucestershire land? > In this fine he is inducing Walter to give up his claim peaceably by giving him a much less significant grant as a sweetener, thus avoiding the cost of a lengthy court battle, like the one he was having with his nephew John, still being sorted out in the 1227 fine. > > It is annoying that this whole subject could be solved if only the ....us word was clear! Although I could not make any sense of the situation if it was "avus." If Walter had been Berta's son there would be no excuse for taking this maritagium away. It would be his by right. But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away. I dare say landholdings were fairly often consolidated between relatives, for any number of different reasons and with a wide range of apparent value in compensation. Peter Stewart

I have traced back in ancestry to John Thwaites, born in 1305 near Yorkshire, England and died in 1360 near Denton, Yorkshire, England. He had a son, Thomas Thwaites, born in 1330 and died in 1399 also in or near Denton, Yorkshire, England. Has anyone here been on that line of Thwaites?

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > The following line is found on Leo's site. However, it contains > > one generation that I am not convinced of, though others here > > accept it wholeheartedly, even vehemently: > > 5. John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey > > ........ > > 6. Edward de Warren of Poynton, said to be his illegitimate son > In a post of some years ago the genealogical medieval researcher Douglas > Richardson says > > In his will > dated 1347, he specifically names a son, Edward, who people have > claimed was the ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton. > That Edward is indeed the son of John, 8th Earl and Maud de Nerford, > as well as the ancestor of the Poynton family is proved by several > records. In 1323, Blomefield reports that Sir Ralph de Skeyton > conveyed the reversion of the manors of Booton and Skeyton, Norfolk to > Maud de Nerford and her sons, Ralph and Edward. Maud subsequently > received a release from Sir Ralph de Skeyton's sister and heir, Alice > Hauteyn, in 1345. Maud died soon afterwards as she was reported to be > deceased later that year. At this point, the manors of Booton and > Skeyton, Norfolk fell to her son, Edward de Warenne, in accordance > with the settlement of 1323. > > I personally think this is convincing enough. Good for you. Unfortunately, it is equally consistent with an alternative explanation. Please note that none of the supposed proof actually links Edward Warren of Poynton to Earl John - it links him to Maud de Nerford, whom the researcher in question insists is identical to the mistress of Earl John, without any proof. In an alternative explanation of these records, another researcher has suggested that the Maud de Nerford who received this grant was a different woman entirely, formerly wife of a member of a junior line of the Warennes, separate from the earls since before the Plantagenet marriage. Given that both reconstructions make Edward son of Maud de Nerford (different women with that name), one cannot distinguish between the two models by proving that Edward was son of Maud de Nerford - evidence must be consistent with one and not the other reconstuction in order to be of value in addressing the question. taf

On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before! > > A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law. > > The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement. > > Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer. > It appears that Berta must have died before 1212. > > Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then? Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word longer than "avus". Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually "socer", rather than "socerus". Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of William de Braiose. If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225. If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine? Peter Stewart

Em quarta-feira, 7 de junho de 2017 00:41:19 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:20:37 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > > Please help with a good descent from Magna Carta Baron Robert de Vere to > > Robert Abell. > > The following line is found on Leo's site. However, it contains one generation that I am not convinced of, though others here accept it wholeheartedly, even vehemently: > > 1. Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford > 2. Hugh de Vere, Earl > 3. Robert de Vere, Earl > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey > ........ > 6. Edward de Warren of Poynton, said to be his illegitimate son > 7. John de Warren > 8. Nicholas de Warren > 9. Lawrence de Warren > 10. Margery de Warren m. John Honford > 11. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring of Over Peover > 13. Randall Mainwaring of Over Peover > 14. Margaret Mainwaring m. Arthur Mainwaring of Ightfield > 15. Mary Mainwaring m. Richard Cotton > 16. Frances Cotton m. George Abell > 17. Robert Abell > > Fortunately, there is a bypass (but already having typed out the other, I will leave it). > > 4. Joan de Vere = William de Warenne > 5. Alice de Warenne m. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel > 6. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 7. Richard Fitz Alan, Earl > 8. Elizabeth Fitz Alan m. Robert Goushill > 9. Joan Goushill m. Thomas Stanley > 10. Katherine Stanley m. John Savage > 11. Margaret Savage m. John Honford > 12. Katherine Honford m. John Mainwaring > > There may be other descents - I seem to recall that Abell had multiple lines of descent from Joan Goushill. > > taf In a post of some years ago the genealogical medieval researcher Douglas Richardson says In his will dated 1347, he specifically names a son, Edward, who people have claimed was the ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton. That Edward is indeed the son of John, 8th Earl and Maud de Nerford, as well as the ancestor of the Poynton family is proved by several records. In 1323, Blomefield reports that Sir Ralph de Skeyton conveyed the reversion of the manors of Booton and Skeyton, Norfolk to Maud de Nerford and her sons, Ralph and Edward. Maud subsequently received a release from Sir Ralph de Skeyton's sister and heir, Alice Hauteyn, in 1345. Maud died soon afterwards as she was reported to be deceased later that year. At this point, the manors of Booton and Skeyton, Norfolk fell to her son, Edward de Warenne, in accordance with the settlement of 1323. I personally think this is convincing enough.

I realized that as the Hanbury genealogy assigns a birthyear of 1580 to Elizabeth Hanbury, wife of Rev. John Cole, while the first website mentioned gives a birthyear of ca. 1582 for her supposed daughter Anne (Cole) Wase, this line is probably untenable. (You could squeeze it in and make it work--barely--if three generations of women each married at 15, but that seems like a stretch.) Back to the drawing board ....

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:29:21 AM UTC-6, Doug Thompson wrote: < I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the < space or the sense. Assuming that Elrington saw the original fine when he made his transcript, the word "auus" [avus] would fit both the space and the sense. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:05:06 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:37:44 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > >> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. > > > You may be right but I should make a few more comments. > > > > > >> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before > > >> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word > > >> longer than "avus". > > > I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus. > > > > > >> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually > > >> "socer", rather than "socerus". > > > I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated. > > > > Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the > > likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in > > the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such > > a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any > > records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say > > about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*? > > A correspondent has kindly pointed out that this is now available for limited search online, here: > > http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/publications/online > > However, the variant form "socerus" is not included in DMLBS, while "socrus" appears only with the meaning "mother-in-law" (both are noted for father-in-law in Lewis & Short, but that is hardly to the purpose). > > Peter Stewart More comments I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the space or the sense. "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over Gloucestershire land? " Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. "But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away." Exchange is when holdings are equal. Walter was being given £15 of land as a reward for giving up half of Tetbury, which was valued at £50 in 1086 and by 1221 must have been worth considerably more. This is what the process of fines is about. An incentive is given to avoid having to go to court. Reginald was probably already in possession of Tetbury but was getting Walter to acknowledge he no longer had a claim. Walter and Reginald were not "friends". Walter supported Louis of France in the war of 1216 in opposition to the Marchers who, with Reginald as one of their main leaders, seized Walter's Beauchamp lands in Worcestershire. Walter would not be giving up Braose lands at that time voluntarily. There's a lot more behind these two fines than appears at a quick reading. Doug Thompson

On 7/06/2017 12:23 AM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > >>> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal >>> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the >>> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases >>> rather than sentences). >>> > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 > > Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you > say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily > interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned > into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these > anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to > standardise name forms. > ----------------------------------------------- > This is an abstract or calendar, not a verbatim transcript or word-for-word translation. Preserving idiosyncratic 13th-century punctuation and capitalisation has no place in such publications, where it is normal to punctuate and capitalise the abstract according to modern principles in order to ensure clarity. Of course I was making a general observation, not a criticism of Elrington's practice in a specific book - medial stops have no place in contemporary English, where the full modern range of punctuation is available. Words do, however, so that reducing Walter and his heirs to just Walter is not good practice on Elrington's part in this specific instance. The same applies in general to capitalisations, that for much of the medieval period were used more for emphasis than as a rule for proper nouns or starting sentences. Italian editors have tended to observe this over the past century or so, while elsewhere medieval orthography has more usually been modernised, or anyway standardised. Luckily this too is changing now - an editor is doing a more faithful job by reproducing the text as exactly as possible in print, or by reproducing one preferred manuscript if there are several and giving the variants from other codices, rather than making a new version full of invisible variants. Adding editorial commas as a silent gloss on the text can change the meaning even of Shakespeare, much more so in medieval Latin. T.E. Lawrence's objection applies - this is mainly a help to people who don't (or shouldn't) need it in the first place. Peter Stewart Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:37:44 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > >> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. > > You may be right but I should make a few more comments. > > > >> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before > >> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word > >> longer than "avus". > > I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus. > > > >> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually > >> "socer", rather than "socerus". > > I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated. > > Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the > likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in > the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such > a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any > records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say > about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*? A correspondent has kindly pointed out that this is now available for limited search online, here: http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/publications/online However, the variant form "socerus" is not included in DMLBS, while "socrus" appears only with the meaning "mother-in-law" (both are noted for father-in-law in Lewis & Short, but that is hardly to the purpose). Peter Stewart