On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:15:00 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead > of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, > I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different > line of research. > > On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > > More comments > > > > I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit > > either the space or the sense. > > > > "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? " > > > > Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. > > Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - > > http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a > > perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. > > The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to > 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in > Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. > > Peter Stewart You appear to have missed the last paragraph Peter. " But only days after meeting the king to conclude the settlement, Giles fell ill and died in Gloucester. It is difficult not to suspect foul play. The de Braose lands reverted back to the crown." I welcome discussion by personal email too! But this forum leaves a record for others to read. Doug Thompson

On 8/06/2017 7:15 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:15:00 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead >> of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread, >> I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different >> line of research. >> >> On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: >> >>> More comments >>> >>> I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit >>> either the space or the sense. >>> >>> "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? " >>> >>> Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. >>> Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - >>> http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a >>> perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221. >> The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to >> 1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in >> Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest. >> >> Peter Stewart > You appear to have missed the last paragraph Peter. > > " But only days after meeting the king to conclude the settlement, Giles fell ill and died in Gloucester. It is difficult not to suspect foul play. The de Braose lands reverted back to the crown." Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that, between them, they could even chew gum at the same time. From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? Peter Stewart