On 8/06/2017 8:49 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > ------------------------------- > 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 don't see how the distinction between the second and third of these situations can be understood in a particular case where the convention is for an abstract simply to leave out the phrase "and his heirs". If the husband's heirs may not be the same as the wife's, this would seem an important point, much less in a highly litigious feudal society such as England from the 13th century onwards. The 1227 Sele priory abstract mentions Walter's and Hugh's heirs by daughters of William de Braiose; the 1221 fine itself mentions Walter and his heirs without reference to descent from a daughter of William, while Elrington's abstract mentions only Walter in this context. I should have thought the potential implication of the specific wording about heirs might be considered important enough to include a few extra words in an abstract. But then the preference for abstracts in English over editions of the original Latin text, and the old habit of wallowing in antiquarian jargon, are some of the reasons that impelled me towards other fields of research. Peter Stewart