On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 1/06/2017 10:01 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:17:16 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> On 31/05/2017 10:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well. > >> That's why I thought the meaning "descended from" would encompass both > >> men's family circumstances. > >> > >> Without the original text we can only grope in the dark. Luckily, > >> publishing extracts in English from unpublished Latin documents (as with > >> Salzman's "edition" of the Sele priory cartulary) is getting to be a > >> thing of the past, and perhaps before too long Magdalen will use some of > >> its wealth to get a proper and complete edition of their documents > >> published. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > The thing I find most interesting is that the reservation made on the fine is about "THE SERVICES of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer and their heirs... " Surely this implies that Reginald is referring to living people which can only mean Walter (d1235). > > This is my assumption, that is why I wondered if the fine might be > reserving the rights of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer who > were both living and of their heirs who were descendants of William de > Braiose through two of the latter's daughters, i.e. one who was the > mother of Walter and the other the wife of Hugh. Whatever their current > family circumstances in 1227, either or both of these men in might end > up having collateral agnatic heirs who were not descendants of William > de Braiose. > > > > > Also, I read only yesterday that William de Braose was granted custody of Elmley in 1202. That looks like it may have included custody of Walter then. If so Braose may have married Walter to his daughter as a first marriage. Mortimer is granted custody of Walter in 1212 after the death of Braose. Perhaps Bertha had had heirs in that time but had died subsequently. > > > > > > Depending on what the original document actually says, rather than going > by what the modern summary may seem to say, it may not be necessary to > come up with alternative scenarios to the former conclusion that Berta > de Braiose was Walter's mother. The name of Berta's mother occurs in the > Beauchamp family, apparently in the same generation as Walter, with > Matilda who married Robert Marmion - her son called himself "filius > Matillis de belo Campo" (by the way, hardly suggesting that the > "vernacular" form of her name was anything much like "Maud"). > > Peter Stewart I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. Just my thoughts Doug Thompson