On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:25:22 PM UTC+10, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. > > > > There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: - > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf > > > > Here is an edited transcription: > > 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] > > CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. > > > > At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. > > > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 01:28 > >> > >> The original is here: > >> > >> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm > >> > >> Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly what > it says. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- > It says (in the fifth and fourth lines up from the bottom): > > ‘Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m > maritag[ium] p[ro] t[er]ra q[ua]m Will[elmu]s d[e] Breaus ...us suus dedit Berte > filie sue in maritag[iu]m' > > The crucial forename is a little unclear, but after comparing it to other > occurrences of Walter and William elsewhere in the document I'm confident it is > 'Will's', not 'Walt'. > > The crucial word describing the relationship between William de Breaus and Walter > isn't legible in the photo (save that it seems to end in 'us'), but can probably > be made out in the original document (especially with the aid of UV light) - I'd > be happy to accept Elrington's reading of it as 'auus'. > > It isn't absolutely clear whether the 'his' in 'filie sue' refers back to William > or Walter., though if I had to choose one way or the other I'd plump for William. Thanks, your eyes are far sharper than mine - pity they didn't opt for higher-definition images. My knowledge of English administratese is negligible. I can see that the scribe has written 'Habenda' with a capital letter but I assume this follows a medial stop and I can't make out where the sense begins, apparently much further back in the text - the question I have is whether 'suus' (after 'avus') refers to Walter de Beauchamp, as Elrington suggested, or to Reynold de Braose. If Walter held the land as Berta's husband then William de Braiose can't have been his grandfather, but he was Reynold's. Peter Stewart

> On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose. >>>> >>>> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are >>>> interested: - >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%20 >>>> 25-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf >>>> >>>> Here is an edited transcription: >>>> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de >>>> Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn] CP 25/1/73/4, number 20. > > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124. >>>> >>>> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose. >>>> > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 June 2017 01:28 > >> > >> The original is here: > >> > >> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm > >> > >> Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly > >> what > it says. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:25:22 PM UTC+10, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: >> It says (in the fifth and fourth lines up from the bottom): >> >> ‘Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut >> lib[eru]m maritag[ium] p[ro] t[er]ra q[ua]m Will[elmu]s d[e] Breaus >> ...us suus dedit Berte filie sue in maritag[iu]m' >> >> The crucial forename is a little unclear, but after comparing it to >> other occurrences of Walter and William elsewhere in the document I'm >> confident it is 'Will's', not 'Walt'. >> >> The crucial word describing the relationship between William de Breaus >> and Walter isn't legible in the photo (save that it seems to end in >> 'us'), but can probably be made out in the original document >> (especially with the aid of UV light) - I'd be happy to accept Elrington's reading of it as 'auus'. >> >> It isn't absolutely clear whether the 'his' in 'filie sue' refers back >> to William or Walter., though if I had to choose one way or the other I'd plump for William. From: Peter Stewart Sent: 06 June 2017 13:01 > Thanks, your eyes are far sharper than mine - pity they didn't opt for higher-definition images. > > My knowledge of English administratese is negligible. I can see that the scribe has written 'Habenda' with a capital letter but I assume this follows a medial stop and I can't make out where the sense begins, apparently much further back in the text - the question I have is whether 'suus' (after 'avus') refers to Walter de Beauchamp, as Elrington suggested, or to Reynold de Braose. If Walter held the land as Berta's husband then William de Braiose can't have been his grandfather, but he was Reynold's. > > Peter Stewart > ------------------------------- As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases rather than sentences). It's difficult to be certain who 'avus suus' refers back to. The more proximate Walter de Beauchamp seems more likely, but it is not impossible that Reynold de Breause is meant. He isn't so far distant syntactically: the operative part of the fine begins 'Reynold acknowledges and grants to Walter £15 of land in the manor of Tetbury, to wit [lengthy description of land follows], to have and to hold to Walter ...' Matt Tompkins