From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 <snip> > In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de Braiose's grandson. > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life. It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars. Matt Tompkins

On 8/06/2017 8:55 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 > <snip> >> In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et > Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m > maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without > mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium > was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of > Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de > Braiose's grandson. >> Peter Stewart >> > ------------------------------- > Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life. > > It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars. It's interesting how different (not to say odd) ways of treating sources have become common in different scholarly traditions - for instance, in Russia where there is precious little source material from before the 14th century they tend to take every word (indeed every letter) in late-medieval and early-modern chronicles as a national treasure. In England, overwhelmed with administrivia from the 13th century owards, they blithely omit phrases that initiates are expected to take for granted while yet feeling a need to standardise names for readers who may be thrown by variety. Peter Stewart