On 31/05/2017 12:08 PM, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 02:29:17 UTC+1, taf wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote: >> >>>> Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only >>>> months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp >>>> then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving >>>> wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). >>> Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably >>> have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be >>> reassessed. May take a while. >> With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation. >> >> taf > Hi all, > > The evidence is as follows: > > In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:- > 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400. > > The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:- > 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418. The editor made no remark on the name of Joan's husband in the second of these entries, but in the first he noted that Walter's Mortimer wife was Joan who died in 1225. The index makes clear that Joan was the wife of Walter the 4th baron, who died on 11 April 1236 according to the same annals. 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. Peter Stewart