On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:19:53 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > 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. > Yes, completely agree, and yes, I meant for the linked page only, not whatever the other pages may say which I didn't go through in detail. Joe Cook

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 7:42:09 PM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:19:53 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > > 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. > > > > Yes, completely agree, and yes, I meant for the linked page only, not whatever the other pages may say which I didn't go through in detail. > Joe Cook I think that the deeds do not provide convincing evidence for the marriage proposed in the cited website. While William de Spineto's wife Joan chronologically plausibly could have been a daughter of Hugh de Burleye and his wife Joan (who was the heiress of Simon de Coughton and his wife Constance), the language of the fines (according to the abstracts) does not suggest that the transfer of property to William, and later to William and his wife Joan, was a marriage settlement for a daughter. In particular, William paid 4 marks of silver for the property he received in 1257 from Hugh de Burleye and Joan, and in 1274 he paid John de Bibbesl' and his wife Constance (Simon's widow) 75 marks of silver and Hugh de Norfolk and his wife Joan (Hugh de Burleye's widow) 40 marks of silver for additional pieces of Coughton.