I think this is a new piece of evidence: 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) “[327] E/840      1316 MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) (French) (MS defective)” According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). William Acton

On Saturday, 16 September 2017 22:44:53 UTC+12, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > I think this is a new piece of evidence: > > 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) > “[327] E/840      1316 > MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: > She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) > (French) (MS defective)” > > According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). > > > William Acton Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated. The presumed line of descent is thus: Mary de Ros, M William, 1st Baron Braose (d 1290). Died before 23 May 1326. She had issue: / Sir Peter de Braose, of Tetbury, Co. Glouc., M 1300 Agnes (M 1st Henry Hussey, of Harting, Sussex, who died 1289. She was recorded as living in 1324 & as recently dead in 1333), sister of Robert, 1st Baron Clifford, & d. of Roger de Clifford, Lord of Tenbury, Co. Worc. Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2. He had issue: / Alice de Braose, M Ralph St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex (He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey). Died after 1362. She had issue: / John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”. If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros). Is this a correct interpretation? Robert O'Connor

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > On Saturday, 16 September 2017 22:44:53 UTC+12, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > > I think this is a new piece of evidence: > > > > 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) > > “[327] E/840      1316 > > MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: > > She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) > > (French) (MS defective)” > > > > According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). > > > > > > William Acton > > Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated. > > The presumed line of descent is thus: > > Mary de Ros, M William, 1st Baron Braose (d 1290). Died before 23 May 1326. She had issue: > / > Sir Peter de Braose, of Tetbury, Co. Glouc., M 1300 Agnes (M 1st Henry Hussey, of Harting, Sussex, who died 1289. She was recorded as living in 1324 & as recently dead in 1333), sister of Robert, 1st Baron Clifford, & d. of Roger de Clifford, Lord of Tenbury, Co. Worc. Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2. He had issue: > / > Alice de Braose, M Ralph St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex (He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey). Died after 1362. She had issue: > / > John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”. > > If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros). > > Is this a correct interpretation? > > Robert O'Connor No. Mr.

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > Is this a correct interpretation? > > Robert O'Connor Dear Robert ~ Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed. According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless. Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family. The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters. For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff. In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm). Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 4:54:14 AM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > > > Is this a correct interpretation? > > > > Robert O'Connor > > Dear Robert ~ > > Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed. You should reread his paper. Davis marshalls several pieces of contemporary evidence to support his case, for example: “The facts that John St.Owen owed a substantial sum to Thomas de Braose, and that his son's chamber's daubing was paid by the manor of Wiston owned by Peter de Braose (of Wiston), are suggestive that he was a close relative of them.” > According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless. Davis identifies the 1569 visitation of Herefordshire by Robert Cooke as the earliest source for Alice’s surname and paternity. In that visitation, her father is identified as “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” and the arms shown are of the Braose family. As for the Visitation of Shropshire, Davis does have a go at identifying ‘Hochampe’: “One source calls Alice's father "de Hochampe". This may be considered a clue, but only a clue. Furthermore, it is uncertain what this means. I consider the most likely meaning to be "of Horsham", but there is a Huxham it might refer to, or it might be a transcription error for "Bokham".” As Davis points out, Sir Peter’s family had links with Horsham (his grandson Thomas was buried there). > Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family. You have no grounds to be making assurances. You assume that Alice’s father was a cadet of the senior Brewes family; Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury was exactly that. > The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters. Good point about the other daughters, but this is a later visitation and it doesn’t mean Alice de Braose didn’t exist. > For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff. > > In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm). > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Davis comments that “In 1316 Ralph St.Owen's property was in the hands of his overlord, Mary, widow of William Braose and mother of this Peter Braose. She would probably have controlled his marriage as well, and either controlled or had substantial influence over the marriages of any children of her recently deceased son Peter. This provides opportunity for the marriage. Motive is that any daughters of Peter, having at least two brothers, would have had no inheritance, and Ralph held several manors in Sussex, Herefordshire and Radnorshire, which would provide a nice support for him and his wife.” The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion. William Acton