On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before! > > A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law. > > The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement. > > Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer. > It appears that Berta must have died before 1212. > > Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then? Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. 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". Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually "socer", rather than "socerus". Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of William de Braiose. If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225. If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine? Peter Stewart

On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before! > > A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law. > > The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement. > > Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer. > It appears that Berta must have died before 1212. > > Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then? From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> Sent: 07 June 2017 03:16 > Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works. > > 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". > > Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually "socer", rather than "socerus". > > Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of William de Braiose. > If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225. If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine? > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- It would be possible, and not at all unusual, for a remarried widower to be still holding his deceased former wife's maritagium in three situations. First, if a child had been born to the marriage, in which case the curtesy of England would give him the right to remain in possession of her property until his own death (tenure in maritagium did not alter this). Second, if, as was common, the grant in maritagium had been made to the wife AND her spouse - in which case the husband would be holding after her death in his own right. Third, if the grant in maritagium had been made to the husband alone and his heirs (which did happen, though it became less common after c1200) - in this case the husband's ownership is absolute. I think Doug is right that this fine looks like the compromise of a dispute over the entire manor. Walter de Beauchamp has claimed it all (justly, it seems to me) but has been forced to accept a division with Reynold de Braose. However I also think the faded word in the original document is far more likely to be 'avus' than 'socerus', both as a better fit for the faded word and because 'socerus' was a very rarely used term (if it was in use at all). If the word is avus then Walter is claiming as Bertha's son, not her widower - which is presumably why the action which the fine terminated was one of mort d'ancestor. (Though if the original grant in maritagium had been made to William de Beauchamp alone, Walter would be claiming as William's son.) Matt Tompkins