On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 07:20:12 UTC+1, John Watson wrote: >> On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 04:49:24 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> >>>>> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, >>>>> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. >>>>> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the >>>>> initial W. is given there under 1225. >>>> I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. >>> This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting >>> the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their >>> heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July >>> 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose >>> had died in 1197. >>> >>> Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the >>> original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters >>> of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to >>> be the son rather than husband of Berta? >>> >>> Peter Stewart >> Hi all, >> >> It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere. >> >> Does anyone have access to: >> L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923) >> or, >> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003) >> >> Regards, >> >> John > 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. 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 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. Matt Tompkins