> 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. > Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine They are about completely different subjects. I meant where they agree is about Walter being married to Berta. 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. "ut liberum maritagium" in my understanding automatically limits rights to heirs of that marriage. > 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? That's the point of the fine. It's not a confirmation of the maritagium. It's a new grant of land to Walter by Reginald to replace that which Walter was still holding irregularly in Reginald's view. In return Walter quitclaims the half of the manor of Tetbury which he had been given at the time of the marriage. Note that Walter would not have returned the maritagium to William de Braose because he was exiled and died years before. It is only now that Reginald has regained rights to the family lands that he is able to claim back the half-manor of Tetbury. In this fine he is inducing Walter to give up his claim peaceably by giving him a much less significant grant as a sweetener, thus avoiding the cost of a lengthy court battle, like the one he was having with his nephew John, still being sorted out in the 1227 fine. It is annoying that this whole subject could be solved if only the ....us word was clear! Although I could not make any sense of the situation if it was "avus." If Walter had been Berta's son there would be no excuse for taking this maritagium away. It would be his by right. Doug Thompson

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*? >> Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine > They are about completely different subjects. I meant where they agree is about Walter being married to Berta. > > 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. > "ut liberum maritagium" in my understanding automatically limits rights to heirs of that marriage. Then why would this need to be spelled out in the 1227 fine from Sele priory? >> 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? > That's the point of the fine. It's not a confirmation of the maritagium. It's a new grant of land to Walter by Reginald to replace that which Walter was still holding irregularly in Reginald's view. In return Walter quitclaims the half of the manor of Tetbury which he had been given at the time of the marriage. > > Note that Walter would not have returned the maritagium to William de Braose because he was exiled and died years before. It is only now that Reginald has regained rights to the family lands that he is able to claim back the half-manor of Tetbury. 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? > In this fine he is inducing Walter to give up his claim peaceably by giving him a much less significant grant as a sweetener, thus avoiding the cost of a lengthy court battle, like the one he was having with his nephew John, still being sorted out in the 1227 fine. > > It is annoying that this whole subject could be solved if only the ....us word was clear! Although I could not make any sense of the situation if it was "avus." If Walter had been Berta's son there would be no excuse for taking this maritagium away. It would be his by right. But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away. I dare say landholdings were fairly often consolidated between relatives, for any number of different reasons and with a wide range of apparent value in compensation. Peter Stewart