On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:05:06 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:37:44 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the > > likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in > > the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such > > a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any > > records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say > > about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*? > > A correspondent has kindly pointed out that this is now available for limited search online, here: > > http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/publications/online > > However, the variant form "socerus" is not included in DMLBS, while "socrus" appears only with the meaning "mother-in-law" (both are noted for father-in-law in Lewis & Short, but that is hardly to the purpose). > > Peter Stewart More comments I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the space or the sense. "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over Gloucestershire land? " Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. "But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away." Exchange is when holdings are equal. Walter was being given £15 of land as a reward for giving up half of Tetbury, which was valued at £50 in 1086 and by 1221 must have been worth considerably more. This is what the process of fines is about. An incentive is given to avoid having to go to court. Reginald was probably already in possession of Tetbury but was getting Walter to acknowledge he no longer had a claim. Walter and Reginald were not "friends". Walter supported Louis of France in the war of 1216 in opposition to the Marchers who, with Reginald as one of their main leaders, seized Walter's Beauchamp lands in Worcestershire. Walter would not be giving up Braose lands at that time voluntarily. There's a lot more behind these two fines than appears at a quick reading. Doug Thompson

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:29:21 AM UTC-6, Doug Thompson wrote: < I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the < space or the sense. Assuming that Elrington saw the original fine when he made his transcript, the word "auus" [avus] would fit both the space and the sense. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different line of research. On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > More comments > > I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit > either the space or the sense. > > "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to > retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she > must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles > was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would > Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over > Gloucestershire land? " > > Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. > Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - > http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a > perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. Peter Stewart