On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:36:59 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: > Thanks all for your efforts to document the de Spineto/Spyne family. > > VCH Warwickshire (in the Coughton section) cites several deeds from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines volumes (Dugdale Society). I have now read the full text of these abstracts/translations. I see nothing to identify the wives of the men named William de Spineto beyond their given names. Are these volumes readily available to others interested in this family? If not, I can post transcriptions of the fines when I have finished copying them for myself. > > Meanwhile the name William de Spineto appears twice in the Fine Rolls of Henry III: > > 1253/54 February. Wiltshire. William son of Sewal' de Spineto gives the king two marks for an assize of mort d’ancestor to be taken before Roger of Whitchester. Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire to take etc. ["Sewal' de Spineto" written over erased text.] > http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_051.html#it256_010, 38 Henry III (28 October 1253–27 October 1254), membrane 10 > > 1271 December 17. Warwickshire, "William de Spineto and Joan his wife" gave "half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire." http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_069.html#it168_019, 56 Henry III (28 October 1271–27 October 1272), membrane 19 > > We know from one of the Fines cited in VCH that a William de Spineto was purchasing land in Coughton by 1256-1257 (41 Henry III). > > We also know from deeds that the William de Spineto that married a Margery had land interests in Worcestershire. > > Does it seem plausible that William son of Sewal' de Spineto was the same man as the William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton in 1254-1255? Would it be surprising for a man purchasing land in Warwickshire to have recently asked for an assize of mort d'ancestor in Wiltshire? Was 2 marks a lot to pay for such an assize? Would such a case be recorded in the King's Bench Plea Rolls? They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here): https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=%22sawat%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=oQnygP6kDz&sig=2Lhgti_r6mapbIBVKDEW8gBAt30&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt6-SA973NAhVBpR4KHcafBI8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sawat%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false and: https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22sawal%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=Cgikz9Q6dS&sig=Hx2rnb3-YlHIbJFRCoVRMw8gbak&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUr4Oz973NAhXCpx4KHdPDBCoQ6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=%22sawal%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false More interestingly, perhaps, is this British History article: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp74-86 And I agree with the conclusion found here: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:31:30 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > And I agree with the conclusion found here: > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499 Maybe in the immediate generation linked, but if the elder William married a Bruley heiress, then I suspect that was not the case for his grandson. There may have been a vague tradition (e.g. heraldry) that had the family marrying Coughton and Bruley heiresses, and hence called for two links, one to Coughton and one to Bruley, but if the first marriage was to an heiress of both, then the latter marriage is not necessary to explain the Bruley inheritance and the Bruley fines. Not that a family couldn't marry distant branches of the same family in subsequent generations, but I would suggest that this modified explanation of the earlier generation places the latter all the more in doubt. taf

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:31:30 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: ... > They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here): > https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293 ... > > and: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93 ... > ... Thanks, Joe, for these links to documents mentioning Sawal son of William de Spineto. I wrote a reply a couple hours ago, but Google Groups appears to have lost it (a message said processing was taking a long time and to send the post again if it didn't appear soon), so I'm writing the reply again. My apologies for duplication if the original post eventually appears. The first document you cited, https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=Spineto, appears to be dated the end of January in 1220. Perhaps someone who can easily read this Latin can supply an explanation of the argument and the result of this court case. The second document, a deed, https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Spineto, is dated 4 John, so nearly a generation earlier. There is another deed witnessed by William de Spineto on the same page. It is undated, but since it involves the same people perhaps it was executed at about the same time. (This William presumably cannot be the same man as the William de Spineto sentenced to be hanged in 1196 unless the hanging wasn't carried out.) In both of the documents you cite, the given name of the son of a William de Spineto is Sawal. In the 1254 Fine Roll, the given name of the father of a William de Spineto is Sewal (with a line written through the l as in the court document). The image of the Fine Roll is here, http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/fimages/C60_51/m10.html. The entry is the ninth one above the stitches. It seems plausible that Sawal and Sewal could be the same name. While the court case and deed were from Essex and the Fine Roll mentions Wiltshire, chronologically, the documents could refer to the same man--in 1202-1203 Sawel as a young man with his father William de Spineto living, Sawal's father William de Spineto dead by 1220, and Sewal de Spineto himself dead by February 1253/54 and his son William eager to posses his land. There is still the question of whether the son William de Spineto in 1253/54 may have been the same man as a contemporary William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton.