> 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. > 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. > 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. 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. Doug Thompson

With apologies to Matt Tompkins for sending this reply by mistake to his email address and not to the newsgroup: 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). 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. > It's difficult to be certain who 'avus suus' refers back to. The more > proximate Walter de Beauchamp seems more likely, but it is not > impossible that Reynold de Breause is meant. He isn't so far distant > syntactically: the operative part of the fine begins 'Reynold > acknowledges and grants to Walter £15 of land in the manor of Tetbury, > to wit [lengthy description of land follows], to have and to hold to > Walter ...' 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

Dear Newsgroup ~ Farrer, Final Concords of Lancaster 2 (Lanc. & Cheshire Rec. Soc. 46) (1903): 48 comments on the alleged maiden name of Katherine, wife of Sir Robert de Lathum: “Katherine, wife of Sir Robert de Lathum, lord of Lathum, is said, on the authority of the pedigree in the College of Arms, to have been dau. and heir of Thomas de Knowsley. So far as the pedigree of the Knowsley family can be deduced there appear to be some grounds of substituting Robert for Thomas, as the name of Katherine’s parent.” END OF QUOTE. Thus it would appear only on the basis of an ancient pedigree that Katherine, wife of Robert de Lathum, is alleged to be "daughter and heir of Thomas de Knowsley." No evidence exists to prove this claim. Red flag. Interestingly, today I located another lawsuit today which concerns Katherine, widow of Robert de Lathum, and Joan her sister. In Michaelmas term 1341 William Bard the elder and Margaret his wife sued William Bard the younger and Joan his wife in the Court of Common Pleas in a plea that they warrant them to the sixth part of the manor of Bele by Beverley, Yorkshire which Katherine widow of Robert de Lathum and Joan her sister claim as their right. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/328, image 48f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no328/aCP40no328fronts/IMG_0048.htm). The manor of Bele named in this lawsuit appears to be an estate at Weel, Yorkshire. VCH York East Riding 6 (1989): 308-313 includes a discussion of village of Weel stands about 2½ km. east of Beverley on the opposite bank of the river Hull. It reads as follows: "The part of Weel granted away by the archbishop comprised 3 bovates. The undertenant recorded from 1298 to 1315 was John of Staveley (fn. 59) and in 1346 Richard of Ask (perhaps for Eske). (fn. 60) The manor of WEEL was settled on Richard and his wife Joan, with remainder to Joan's heirs, in 1348-9, when it was held in dower by Margaret wife of William Bard. (fn. 61) It was perhaps the same Joan who, as widow of Robert of Holme, held land of the archbishop's fee in 1369. (fn. 62) An estate described as ¼ of the manors of Weel and Eske was conveyed by Sir John of Leek and his wife to Walter of Topcliffe and his wife in 1391. (fn. 63) The manors later belonged successively to John Topcliffe (d. by 1538) and his son Robert. (fn. 64) In 1573, when it included ground called Topcliffe park, it was sold by Richard Topcliffe to Richard Tailforde." END OF QUOTE. Margaret, wife of William Bard, living in 1348-9, named above would presumably be the same person as Margaret, wife of William Bard the elder, named in the 1341 lawsuit above. It was seen in my earlier post today that William Bard the younger named in both 1341 lawsuits was of Osgodby, Yorkshire. Curiously, I've found two references to a contemporary Robert de Lathum of Osgodby, Yorkshire in the Close Rolls: l. In 1319 Robert de Lathum of Osgodeby and others acknowledged that they owed Robert de Bardelby, clerk, £60. Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1318-1323 (1895): 210. 2. In 1322 John le fiz Johan Amyes de Hemmyngburgh and Thomas Pertrik of Wodehalle brought a writ of ael against Hugh de Bradeford, of Osgodby, Yorkshire, for eight acres of land in Osgodby, "concerning which Hugh ought to vouch to warranty Robert de Lathum of Osgodby." Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1318-1323 (1895): 536. Robert de Lathum, of Osgodby, Yorkshire (living 1322) is presumably the husband of Katherine, widow of Robert de Lathum named in the two Common Pleas lawsuits dated 1341. But was he the same person as Sir Robert de Lathom, of Lathom, Lancashire (died 1325), who also left a widow, Katherine? My feeling at this point is that there were two men named Robert de Lathom, one in Yorkshire, and one in Lancashire, both of whom left widows named Katherine. Possibly additional evidence can be found to prove if we are dealing with one or two Robert de Lathom's. My guess is that we are dealing with two men. Having multiple men of the same men alive at the same time is the bane of medieval research. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thanks John for posting this additional record regarding Isabel de Steeton. Much appreciated. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:59:17 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > 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 Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:59:17 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > 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 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? Doug Thompson

Dear Sara ~ Below is my current file account regarding Maud de Brus and her husband, Thomas Isaac, Esq. (also known as Thomas son of Isaac). Her given name was Maud. Matilda is the Latin form of her name. Thomas Isaac appears to have owned no lands in his own right in Scotland, which suggests the possibility that he was from outside of Scotland. He certainly had no title. I suppose he might have been French, as we know that Maud was living in France from 1334 to 1341. Soon after Maud's return to Scotland, she married Thomas Isaac. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah + + + + + + + + + + MAUD DE BRUS, daughter by her father’s 2nd marriage. She was sent to France in 1334 along with her brother, King David II of Scotland, and her sister, Margaret, for their safety. They returned to Scotland in 1341. She married after June 1342 but before 1345 THOMAS ISAAC (or YSAK), Esq. They had two daughters, Janet and Katherine. In 1342 Thomas son of Isaac was paid £6 12s. 6d. “until otherwise provided for.” At an unknown date, his wife, Maud, was granted half of the thanage of Formartine and Kintore, Aberdeenshire by her brother, David II, King of Scots. Maud died at Aberdeen 20 July 1353, and was buried in the abbey church of Dunfermline, Fife by her parents. THOMAS ISAAC, Esq., was living in Nov. 1364. References: Rymer, Fœdera 6 (1727): 105–106 (Thomas Isaac styled “nobleman” in 1358). Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 5 (1812): 111–129 (sub Earl of Aylesbury). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 3 (1840): 6–8 (ped.). Paterson Hist. of Ayr 2 (1852): 271. Riddell, Comments on the Keir Performance with Drumpellier’s Exposition (1860): 189 (“Antecedent entry in the Exchequer Roll of David II., that in 1328 [sic] the Thanedom of Formartin was in the hands of ‘Comitis de Sotherland, et Matilde de Bruce, spouse Thome Isaac; ’ thus confirming Fordun’s account of the marriage.”). Skene, Johannis de Fordun Chronica Gentis Scotorum (Historians of Scotland 1) (1871): 369–370 (“Obiit Matildis de Bruyse, soror domini David regis Scociæ, anno MCCCLIII [1353], apud Abbirden, in festo beatæ Margaretæ virginis, et sepulta est in Dunfermlyn cum parentibus suis,quæ nupsit cuidam armigero, nominee Thomæ Ysaac…”). Stuart & Burnett, Rotuli Scaccarii Regum Scotorum 1 (1878): cxxviii, note 1, 510, 545–546, 551 (Maud de Brus, wife of Thomas Isaac, styled “sister of the king”); 2: 132. Skene, Liber Pluscardensis 1 (Historians of Scotland 7) (1877): 239–240; 2 (Historians of Scotland 10) (1880): 103–104, 184–185. Bain, Cal. Docs. Rel. Scotland 1108–1509 4 (1888): 4. Temple, Thanage of Fermartyn (1894): 20. Scots Peerage 1 (1904): 8 (sub Kings of Scotland). Dunbar, Scottish Kings (1906): 141–142. C.P. 8 (1932): 138–143 (sub Lorn). Fryde, Handbook of British Chron. (1986): 59. Grant & Stringer, Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship & Community (1993): 66, 74–75. TG 12 (1998): 251. Burke’s Landed Gentry of Great Britain (2001): lxiii–lxv (sub Scottish Royal Lineage). Special thanks go to Andrew B.W. MacEwen for his assistance with this account.

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

Minor correction: For "they appear to have had an interest in unspecified land in Yorkshire in 1342," please read "they appear to have had an interest in unspecified land in Yorkshire in 1341." DR

I believe I've posted on this topic before, but can't currently find that posting. This webpage gives a basic idea of the three-generation line of descent I'm wondering about: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Anne_Wase_(1) --Anne Cole (? b. 1582- ) = William Wase II (1580-1642), son of William Wase and Christine/Christian Budd --Anne Wase (? 1600-1687) = Thomas Brinley (d. 1661) --children: Brinley immigrants to New England, including Francis Brinley and Grizell (Brinley) Sylvester Tombstones at Datchet, Bucks., provide the death dates of William Wase II and Thomas Brinley and state the relationship between them. Addenda to the Sussex Visitation provides the following description of the pertinent Wase line: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101038161426;view=1up;seq=129 --Wm. Wase son of Wm. = X'pian [ie., Christian] da. of ... Budd, sister of Auditor Budd --Wm. Wase son of Wllm. Wase = Ann d. of ... Cole by .... da. of ... Hanby _An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Buckinghamshire_ apparently describes a gravestone at Datchet, Bucks., to "Rose, wife of Richard Budd, Auditor of the King's Revenue, 1624, her son Richard, her niece Anne, wife of William Wase, 1661." As William Wase of Datchet, who married Anne Cole, was the son of Christian Budd, sister to Rose's husband, Auditor Richard Budd, this could be a satisfactory and totally correct description. However, I believe that Anne Cole was Rose (?__) Budd's OWN niece as well as the wife of Richard Budd's nephew. The Visitation of Worcestershire shows that the Rose who married Auditor Richard Budd was _nee_ Rose Hanbury, a daughter of Richard Hanbury of Elmley, Worcestershire: https://books.google.com/books?id=hiTvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA68&dq=%22richard+budd%22+hanbury&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi56r2DmKrUAhUJbiYKHdg9A7gQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=%22richard%20budd%22%20hanbury&f=false Note that Rose (Hanbury) Budd had a sister ___, married to Mr. Cole, parson of Elmley. Other sources indicate that parson Cole of Elmley was the Rev. John Cole, who died in 1615, and whose wife was Elizabeth Hanbury: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025922660;view=1up;seq=21 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025922652;view=1up;seq=227 https://books.google.com/books?id=-blYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA247&dq=%22francis+bradley%22+hanbury&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8yLXImarUAhXBQSYKHf_ODkk4FBDoAQg1MAQ#v=onepage&q=%22francis%20bradley%22%20hanbury&f=false Rose (Hanbury) Budd and Elizabeth (Hanbury) Cole are mentioned together in this 1608 will of their wealthy kinsman Richard Hanbury of DATCHET: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025922652;view=1up;seq=256 Richard Hanbury, a native of Worcestershire, had lived in London and at Datchet, Bucks., where the Wases and Brinley were later to be found. If the Anne Cole who married William Wase of Datchet can in fact be successfully identified as a daughter of Rev. John and Elizabeth (Hanbury) Cole of Elmley, the ancestry of the Hanburies of Worcestershire should be checked for any royal descents. I note that one source gives Rose and Elizabeth's ancestress, the wife of an earlier sixteenth-century Richard Hanbury, as the daughter of "John Bassett of North Luffenham, Rutland (by Anne his wife, daughter of Thomas Rouse, of Overton, Worcestershire)" .... https://books.google.com/books?id=cGMvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA143&dq=hanburie+bassett+elmley&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxpMGin6rUAhWNdSYKHfwfA8QQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=hanburie%20bassett%20elmley&f=false ... which Anne (Rouse) Bassett is identified elsewhere as a grandchild of a Vavasour and great-grandchild of a Stafford. https://books.google.com/books?id=sedMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA114&dq=bassett+luffenham+hanbury&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr9Jb_parUAhXDYyYKHSFmC8MQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=bassett%20luffenham%20hanbury&f=false

Dear Newsgroup ~ Many published sources state that Sir Robert de Lathom (died 1325), of Lathom, Lancashire, ancestor of the Stanley family, married Katherine, daughter and heiress of "Sir Thomas de Knowsley." For example, see Pollard, The Stanleys of Knowsley, a History of that Noble Family (1868): 199 which states the following: "In the fourteenth century Sir Robert de Lathom married Catherine, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas de Knowsley, and thus by this marriage Knowsley became the property of the Lathoms." END OF QUOTE. However, Farrer, Final Concords of Lancaster 1 (Lanc. & Cheshire Rec. Soc. 39) (1899): 8, footnote 1 contradicts that statement: “All the pedigrees of the Lathom family trace the acquisition of Knowsley to the marriage of Sir Robert de Lathom, Kt., to Catherine, dau. and heiress of Robert de Knowsley, erroneously so called. What estates she brought her husband I do not know ...”). END OF QUOTE. So Farrer refutes the claim that Katherine, wife of Sir Robert de Lathom, was the "daughter and heiress of Robert de Knowsley," or even that she was an heiress. Assuming there is no evidence that Katherine was a Knowsley, who then was Katherine? In recent time, I've located two Common Pleas lawsuits which involve Katherine, both during the period she was the widow of Sir Robert de Lathom: 1. In Michaelmas term 1341 Katherine widow of Robert de Lathum and Joan her sister sued William Bard the younger, of Osgodby, Yorkshire, and Joan his wife in the Court of Common Pleas in a plea of land in Yorkshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/328, image 34f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no328/aCP40no328fronts/IMG_0034.htm). Who was William Bard, of Osgodby, mentioned in the 1341 lawsuit? VCH York N.R. 2 (1923): 430-434 states that "William Bard 'of Osgodby' died in possession of lands in Osgodby and Cayton in 1349." No mention is made of his wife, Joan. 2. In 1342 Henry Fitz Bernard and Maud his wife sued Katherine, widow of Robert de Lathum, and Thomas de Lathum, Knt., in the Court of Common Pleas regarding custody of the lands and heir of Richard de Torbok, Knt., [for] the third part of two parts of the manor of Tarbock in Tarbock, Lancashire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/330, image 425f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no330/aCP40no330fronts/IMG_0425.htm). VCH Lancaster 3 (1907): 176-182 gives further information regarding this lawsuit. "The defence was that [the plaintiff] Maud was never legally married to Richard [de Torbock], and the question being referred to the bishop of Lichfield for inquiry he reported that there was no lawful marriage. Five or six years later there was a contest between Katherine de Lathom and her son Thomas and Henry Russell of Chester as to the custody of the heirs." The following additional sources are cited: Lichfield Epis. Reg. V. fol. 48 (quoting roll 288 of the pleas at Westminster, 15 Edw. III); De Banc. R. 346, m. 285 d.; 351, m. 267 d. 303 d.; 353, m. 22 d.; 355, m. 202 d. Reviewing the above, we learn that Katherine, wife of Sir Robert de Lathom, had a sister, Joan, and that they appear to have had an interest in unspecified land in Yorkshire in 1342. Katherine's parentage is not established. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de Lathom (died 1325) and his wife, Katherine: Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Thomas Booth, Grace Chetwode, Henry Corbin, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, Margaret Domville, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Thomas Gerard, Muriel Gurdon, Daniel & John Humphrey, Oliver Manwaring, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, Thomas Rudyard, Mary Wolseley, Amy Wyllys. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I am trying to find more information on Godfrey The Chamberlain, Husband of Avicia De Lyston https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zDssBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=avicia+widow+of+godfrey&source=bl&ots=7GLveRpzjx&sig=cnHPvX3KPFZLdVn9fYPvBmCOQS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9mr7Rn6rUAhUjLcAKHXZpDqQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=avicia%20widow%20of%20godfrey&f=false possibly this man http://poms.cch.kcl.ac.uk/db/record/factoid/8656/ Could he also be this man? http://poms.cch.kcl.ac.uk/db/record/person/287/# His sons may have been Roger De Liston ( http://poms.cch.kcl.ac.uk/db/record/person/3043/) , Ralph Fitz Godfrey ( http://henrytheyoungking.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/henry-young-kings-household.html) , John and maybe Geoffrey It looks like he was alive in 1165 but dead by 1185.

This is an old thread, but as a descendant of Matilda & Thomas I just wanted to pipe up so I get notified if anyone posts again on it. Thank you.

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. Matt Tompkins

> On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. >>>> >>>> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are >>>> interested: - >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%20 >>>> 25-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf >>>> >>>> Here is an edited transcription: >>>> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de >>>> Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. >>>> >>>> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. >>>> > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 01:28 > >> > >> The original is here: > >> > >> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm > >> > >> Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly > >> what > it says. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:25:22 PM UTC+10, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: >> It says (in the fifth and fourth lines up from the bottom): >> >> ‘Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut >> lib[eru]m maritag[ium] p[ro] t[er]ra q[ua]m Will[elmu]s d[e] Breaus >> ...us suus dedit Berte filie sue in maritag[iu]m' >> >> The crucial forename is a little unclear, but after comparing it to >> other occurrences of Walter and William elsewhere in the document I'm >> confident it is 'Will's', not 'Walt'. >> >> The crucial word describing the relationship between William de Breaus >> and Walter isn't legible in the photo (save that it seems to end in >> 'us'), but can probably be made out in the original document >> (especially with the aid of UV light) - I'd be happy to accept Elrington's reading of it as 'auus'. >> >> It isn't absolutely clear whether the 'his' in 'filie sue' refers back >> to William or Walter., though if I had to choose one way or the other I'd plump for William. From: Peter Stewart Sent: 06 June 2017 13:01 > Thanks, your eyes are far sharper than mine - pity they didn't opt for higher-definition images. > > My knowledge of English administratese is negligible. I can see that the scribe has written 'Habenda' with a capital letter but I assume this follows a medial stop and I can't make out where the sense begins, apparently much further back in the text - the question I have is whether 'suus' (after 'avus') refers to Walter de Beauchamp, as Elrington suggested, or to Reynold de Braose. If Walter held the land as Berta's husband then William de Braiose can't have been his grandfather, but he was Reynold's. > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- 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). It's difficult to be certain who 'avus suus' refers back to. The more proximate Walter de Beauchamp seems more likely, but it is not impossible that Reynold de Breause is meant. He isn't so far distant syntactically: the operative part of the fine begins 'Reynold acknowledges and grants to Walter £15 of land in the manor of Tetbury, to wit [lengthy description of land follows], to have and to hold to Walter ...' Matt Tompkins

On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 07:20:12 UTC+1, John Watson wrote: >> On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 04:49:24 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> >>>>> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, >>>>> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. >>>>> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the >>>>> initial W. is given there under 1225. >>>> I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. >>> This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting >>> the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their >>> heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July >>> 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose >>> had died in 1197. >>> >>> Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the >>> original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters >>> of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to >>> be the son rather than husband of Berta? >>> >>> Peter Stewart >> Hi all, >> >> It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere. >> >> Does anyone have access to: >> L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923) >> or, >> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003) >> >> Regards, >> >> John > Dear all, > > I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. > > There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: - > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf > > Here is an edited transcription: > 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] > CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. > > At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. The original is here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly what it says. Peter Stewart

On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > Dear all, > > I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. > > There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: - > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf > > Here is an edited transcription: > 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] > CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. > > At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> Sent: 06 June 2017 01:28 >> >> The original is here: >> >> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm >> >> Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly what it says. >> >> Peter Stewart ------------------------------- It says (in the fifth and fourth lines up from the bottom): ‘Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m maritag[ium] p[ro] t[er]ra q[ua]m Will[elmu]s d[e] Breaus ...us suus dedit Berte filie sue in maritag[iu]m' The crucial forename is a little unclear, but after comparing it to other occurrences of Walter and William elsewhere in the document I'm confident it is 'Will's', not 'Walt'. The crucial word describing the relationship between William de Breaus and Walter isn't legible in the photo (save that it seems to end in 'us'), but can probably be made out in the original document (especially with the aid of UV light) - I'd be happy to accept Elrington's reading of it as 'auus'. It isn't absolutely clear whether the 'his' in 'filie sue' refers back to William or Walter., though if I had to choose one way or the other I'd plump for William. Matt Tompkins

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:20:37 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > Please help with a good descent from Magna Carta Baron Robert de Vere to Robert Abell. I found all his other Barons' descents with the help of the Royal Ancestry Volumes, but I think my brain is fried. I am getting ready to do a pedigree chart and an ahnentafel report for my son-in-law, plus descendancy charts for his Charlemagne, William Marshal (coolest ancestor ever), and Barons. > > Thank you and I appreciate this group and all of the great information. > > Valerie Also printing a few royal descents through Edward I and Henry III.

On 6/06/2017 8:02 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > > On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 >> (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to >> exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury >> dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, >> daughter of William de Braose. >> >> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are >> interested: - >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf >> >> >> Here is an edited transcription: >> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de >> Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) >> tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort >> d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in >> the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to >> Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his >> [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in >> marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding >> those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage >> and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and >> easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For >> this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of >> the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de >> Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that >> they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of >> H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] >> CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. >> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to >> Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological >> Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. >> >> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de >> Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half >> of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has >> shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de >> Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have >> been the son of Bertha de Braose. >> > > But how can we be sure that the editor had not made a slip in "William > de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather", and that this should > instead be "William de Braose his [i.e. Reynold's] grandfather"? And how can we be sure which Walter de Beauchamp this is who was evidently married to Berta de Braose? Since he was still holding her father's land in free marriage in August 1221, it can't very well be the lord of Elmley - the latter was married to Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she did not die until 1225. Presumably either Berta was still living in August 1221, or her father's land would have gone to her heir (not to her widower) by then. Peter Stewart

On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > > Dear all, > > I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. > > There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: - > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf > > Here is an edited transcription: > 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] > CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. > > At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. > But how can we be sure that the editor had not made a slip in "William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather", and that this should instead be "William de Braose his [i.e. Reynold's] grandfather"? Peter Stewart

Here is a very good blog on late Byzantine history maintained by Diana G. Wright called "Surprised by Time": More Palaiologues | | | | | | | | | | | More Palaiologues The Palaiologos cross between four firesteel s ( πυρέκβολα ) each resembling a B which are also said to have or... | | | | Darrel Hockley From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:50 PM Subject: OT: Medieval genealogy blogs I was wondering if anyone had a list of favorite genealogy and especially medieval genealogy bloggers online. I liked to read Martin Hollick, Brad Verity, and Nat Taylor's blog, but all three are now on hiatus. Most of the online blogs are either think veiled advertisements or mostly uninteresting fluff. Vita-brevis is a bright spot for New England genealogy, and I peruse Dick Eastmans site from time to time,but that's all that is on my radar and I wanted to hear from the group. Thanks, Joe c ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message