> One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher and
> Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc. Her
> brother Robert later inherited the role as Chief Marshall for King John.
> Interestingly her sister's IPM reveals that Clemence was pregnant on her
> marriage to William de Malesours.

> I would
> hope this exercise [late Dauntsey, newly le Butiller, now Broc] will have
> helped teach people to be more careful about checking for details and evidence,
> rather than struggling as hard as you can to force a connection just because the
> possibility is there.

>One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher and
>Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.

> One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
and
> Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc. Her
> brother Robert later inherited the role as Chief Marshall for King John.
> Interestingly her sister's IPM reveals that Clemence was pregnant on her
> marriage to William de Malesours. This indicates that her son and heir,
> Auger, was a mantle-child and as such illegitimate. He would have had to
> have been granted land because he could not inherit it. However in the
> following IPMs he appears to be accepted as an heir of his aunt. Clemence
> went on to have three more sons. The Broc and Turnham families appear to
> have been well favoured by John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to
> John's cousin Ralph de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of
> Aquitaine.  Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of
> Anjou and in 1215  the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> remarriage  [H&G, v.5 p508].

> 38 Hen III Domina de Chetindon [in Brevi]; Sibilla de Brok' [in
> Inquisitione] Extenta terrae, et de eschaea & c
> Inquisitio facta coram Abbate de Persor', Vicecomite salop et Stephano de
> Butterlegg' Escaetore ejusdem comitatus. Dicunt [juratores] per
sacramentum
> suum quod Sibilla de Brok tenuit duas carucatas terrae cum pertinentiis in
> Chettynton de domino rege in capite. Item dicunt quod praedicta Sibilla
> obiit sine haerede de corpore suo
> procreato. Sed habuit duas sorores seniores se, videlicit, Edelinam
seniorem
> et Clementiam juniorem et praedicta Edelina habuit tres filias maritatas
in
> comitabus Sussex et Surr quarum nomina ignorant, et bene sciunt quod
> Nicholaus de Wauncy est consanguineus unius praedictarum filiarum,
Johannes
> de Bendig' alterius, et Petrus de Hatot' tertiae " et dicunt quod predicta
> Clementia, soror praedictae Sibillae, habuit quatuor filios, videlicit,
> Augerum de quo predicta Clementia pregnans fuit die quo Willielmus de
> Maleseveres quondam maritus praedictae Clementiae ipsam desponsavit, et
> alios tres in legitimo matrimonio procreatos, videlicet, Thomas seniorem,
> qui ante obitum suum procreavit quendam filium de uxore sua legitima,
nomine
> Willielmum, Simonem medium, et Adam juniorem; unde nesciunt si terra
> praedicta sit eschaeta domini Regis, necne, sed in arbitrio consilii
domini
> Regis sit. Salop

> IPM Isabella alias Sibilla de Broc 40 Hen III
> Dicunt[juratores] quod Sibilla nullum haeredum de corpore suo procreatum
> habuit; sed habuit tres sorores, scilicet, Edelinam, Aliciam et
Clementiam.
> Et ignorant utrum Edelina habuit haeredum de se vel non. Et Alicia habuit
> duas filias, scilicet, Emmam et Feliciam.Emma vero habuit unum filium,
> scilicet Petrum de Hautoft. Et Felicia habuit unum filium, scilicet
> Nicholaum de Wancy. Et Clementia habuit unum filium, scilicet Angerum de
> Tatelinton. Et dicunt quod isti tres sunt propinquiores haeredes ejusdem
> Sibillae et sunt plenae aetatis. Salop.

> Predictae Sibilla obiit sine harede de se. Et habuit tres sorores haeredes
> suos, videlicit, Edelinam quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham; et Aliciam
> quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor Willielmi
> Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suum quod nesciunt
> nominare haeredes preadictae Edelinae quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham;
et
> Aliciam quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor
> Willielmi Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suun
quod
> nesciunt nominare hearedes praedictae Edelinae quia non sunt in comitatu
> Salop. De praedicta Alicia exierunt duae filiae, scilicet, Emma senior, de
> qua exiit Petrus Hotoft qui est unus hearedum praedictae Sibillae, et
> Felicia junior de qua exiit Nicholaus de Wauncy unus haeredum. De
Clementia
> autem exiit Aungerus de Tatlinton primogenitus, unus haeredum praedictae
> Sibillae. Dicunt etiam desicut Aungerus est de sorore, et Nicholaus et
> Petrus sunt de neptibus, eis videtur quod Aungerus proprinquior haeres est
> dicta Sibillae. De aetate dicunt quod Petrus de Hotoft et Nicholaus et
> Aungerus sunt plenae aetatis. De aetate [haeredum?] praedict Edelinea
> nesciunt cujus aetatis sint. Salop

> 1.Sir Ranulph de Broc, Usher and Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry
II
> d.1187
> + bef 1166 Damietta da. of William Goram, Lady of Chetton, d bef 1204
>     2.Sir Robert de Broc Marshall of the King, Forester of Cannock
>     +Margery da. of Richard Beauchamp, had issue
>     2.Alicia de Broc
>  *  +William Hareng of Sussex
>     2.Lucia de Broc d.s.p.
>     + William Maubank
>     2.Sibil de Broc d.1255
>     +William de Arundel
>     2.Edelina de Broc d.1221
>     +Stephen de Turnham of Great Berwick, Salop.d 1214, Seneschal of Anjou
> 1186, Escort of Queen Berengaria 1193-4
>         3.Mabel de Turnham
>         +Hamo de Gatton
>         3.Beatrix de Turnham
>         +(1)Ralph de Fay d.1222 (first cousin once removed of King John)
>      * +(2)Hugh de Neville d.1234
>         +(3)Hugh de Playz d.1244
>         3.Alianor de Turnham
>         3.Alice de Turnham
>         3.Clemence de Turnham
>   *  2.Clemence de Broc
>     +William FitzAuger alias Malesoures
>         3.Auger de Tatlington
> [Source Herald and Genealogist, v.5 p.508]

> 1.In the IPM of Robert Waleraund, we saw that he had  rents from land in
> Steeple Lavington. (Dicunt [juratores] quod Robertus Walleraund' habuit
> dictam terram [in Stupellavinton] de dono dominae Matildae de Albo
> Monasterio quondam uxoris domini Johannis filii Alani, et praedicta
Matilda
> habuit dictam terram in liberum maritagium de domina Clementia de Verdun
> matre sua). This land is called Fiffhide Verdun in the IPM of John
Walraund.
> Robert Waleraund also held lands in Tatelington villa, Wiltshire. Clemence
> le Broc's son was 'of Tatlinton,' Wiltshire.

> 2.Robert Waleraund appears to have acquired this land by confiscation from
> Hugh de Neville. After his wife, Joan de Cornhill died, Hugh de Neville's
> grandfather was married to Clemence de Broc's niece Beatrix. During the
> second marriage he held his former wife's lands by courtesy of England.

> Barony of Stogursey
> 1.William de Curci d.1171
>     2.William de Curci b.1168 d.1194 s.p.
>     2.Alice de Curci b c 1170
>     + Henry de Cornhill d.1193
>         3. Joan de Cornhill b c 1186 coheir of her mother d abt 1223
>      * +.Hugh de Neville d.1234 (married secondly Beatrice de Turnham)
>             4.John de Neville d.1246
>                 5. Hugh de Neville of age 1256. During the Baron's War his
> lands were confiscated and granted to Robert Waleraund. Hugh regained 2/3
of
> it in 1266.
>      + Warin FitzGerold d1216
>          3. Margaret
>         +  Baldwin de Riviers d.1216
>         +  Fawkes de Breate controlled all of Alice de Curci's lands until
> his fall in1222 when they were divided between Joan and Margaret.
> [Source Sanders p.143]

> 3.Paul mentioned that in 1216 Nicholas de Verdun's lands were confiscated
> and held by Ralph de Hareng. Clemence de Broc's sister was married to a
> William Hareng.

> I realise that all these are loose associations pointing in the direction
of
> Clemence de Broc and time is needed to digest all the information.
However,
> timing, situation, family connections make her an ideal candidate as
mother
> of Joan. There is even circumstantial evidence which ties her in with
> Clemence de Verdun.

> Cheers

> Rosie

> "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote on 21 Nov 2001 23:53:31 --

> Rosie, this is a rich posting - thanks!  Just a quick ques. as I digest
it.

> >One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought
home
> >to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
> >century.

> >One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
and
> >Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.

> [SNIP]

> >The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
> >John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
> >de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
> >Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
> >and in 1215  the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> >remarriage  [H&G, v.5 p508].

> Does this perhaps rest on new evidence in the long spell since
> Richard Borthwick's article of 8 Dec 99 <re: Clere/Fay/Rus/Turnham>?
> Viz. --

> >28 Ralph # [ =? Raoul de FAYE] de FAY, of Bramley, Surrey. Died
> >Before 1210.
> > Ralph the elder was granted Bramley and other fees by king Henry II.
> >Ralph was dispossessed for his part in the rebellion of the young Henry
and
> >it would appear that while he did recover some lands after king Henry's
> >death, he did not recover Bramley. There is a conjecture that this Ralph
de
> >Fay is to be identified with Raoul de Faye, lord of Faye-la-Vineuse,
first
> >cousin of  queen Eleanor, consort of king Henry II. The references below
> >give no evidence to support this conjecture. The dates given in ES for
> >Raoul fit what we know of Ralph's dates, but ES indicates no descendants
> >for Raoul.

> Cheers.

> Cris
> --

> Hi Cris

> That was a very astute question.

> CP VIII , p622 note (g) gives the strongest link I have seen between
between
> Ralph de Fay, Poitou, and the Turnhams. It deals with the dispute about
the
> custody and marriage of the heirs of Robert de Meinill, a son and
daughter,
> which the King granted to Robert de Turnham on 15 Dec 1207. The custody
and
> marriage was sold on to Ralph de Fay, and between 1218-1220 it was in
> dispute  between Ralph de Fay and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is
quite
> a complex case but I quote the nub of it here for those who don't have
> access to CP.

> Curia Regis Roll 71 Mich 3-4 Hn III (1219), m.7. Ralph de Fay v.
Archbishop
> of Canterbury, for the custody of the land and heirs of Robert de Meisnill
;
> the plaintiff says that Robert de Turnham bought the custody from from
King
> John for 1000 marks, and Robert gave it to the plaintiff (Fay), with the
> marriage of the heir to marry to his daughter (Fay's) for 500 marks and
100
> Poitevin pounds ; and he produced Robert's deed. And he says that King
John
> made the grant during the vacancy of the archbishopric, the kings charter
> being enrolled in the Exchequer, where Robert paid his fine in full. The
> Archbishop claims the custody as belonging to the church, because William
> Paynel, chief lord of the fees of the said Robert, gave the whole fee of
> Robert de Meisnill to Hubert, late Archbishop ; and he produces Paynel's
> deed ; he also produces a charter of King John, granting to S, Archbishop
> the whole fee that Robert de Mednull held of William Paynel, which fee the
> said William gave to H,. late Archbishop, namely the fee of seven knights,
> to hold to him and hid successors, with wardship, homages, services etc. ;
> he ought not answer without the King. The plaintiff says that the grant to
> Robert de Turnham was made and enrolled before the charter to the
> Archbishop. In answer to a question he says he has been in seisin of the
> heir, but not the land; he had the heir for three years, and afterwards
when
> he went to Poitou, he committed him to Stephen de Turnham.

> Rot. Chart. vol. i, p.173, Robert de Turnham was granted the marriage of
the
> heirs, to be married to his nearest relations - namely his nephews
> (nepotibus) or nieces (neptibus). [Presumably these were the children of
> Stephen de Turnham, his younger brother.]

> Cheers

> Rosie

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cristopher Nash" <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
> To: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Clemence de Broc

> > "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote on 21 Nov 2001 23:53:31 --

> > Rosie, this is a rich posting - thanks!  Just a quick ques. as I digest
> it.

> > >One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought
> home
> > >to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early
13th
> > >century.

> > >One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
> and
> > >Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc.

> > [SNIP]

> > >The Broc and Turnham families appear to have been well favoured by
> > >John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to John's cousin Ralph
> > >de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
> > >Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of Anjou
> > >and in 1215  the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> > >remarriage  [H&G, v.5 p508].

> > Does this perhaps rest on new evidence in the long spell since
> > Richard Borthwick's article of 8 Dec 99 <re: Clere/Fay/Rus/Turnham>?
> > Viz. --

> > >28 Ralph # [ =? Raoul de FAYE] de FAY, of Bramley, Surrey. Died
> > >Before 1210.
> > > Ralph the elder was granted Bramley and other fees by king Henry II.
> > >Ralph was dispossessed for his part in the rebellion of the young Henry
> and
> > >it would appear that while he did recover some lands after king Henry's
> > >death, he did not recover Bramley. There is a conjecture that this
Ralph
> de
> > >Fay is to be identified with Raoul de Faye, lord of Faye-la-Vineuse,
> first
> > >cousin of  queen Eleanor, consort of king Henry II. The references
below
> > >give no evidence to support this conjecture. The dates given in ES for
> > >Raoul fit what we know of Ralph's dates, but ES indicates no
descendants
> > >for Raoul.

> > Cheers.

> > Cris
> > --

> Want to relate this bit of info though.  I purchased a photocopy of the
> Brock Family Record by Anna Maude Cawthra Brock which included pictures and
> one was of a Lord Bolingbroke of Cobham Castle and he was born in the 1400's
> and he bore a striking resemblence to my late husband who was born in 1938.
> That was so awe inspiring.  I believe whole heartedly that looks repeat
> themselves if there is a family connection especially if it is a dominate
> factor.  Just my thoughts but worth checking into.

> Edith

> "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:14f401c1731d$ccc9af20$04794fcb@cbevan...
> > One of the things the search for Clemence as mother of Joan has brought
> home
> > to me is actually how many Clemences there were around in the early 13th
> > century.

> > One of them was Clemence de Broc, youngest daughter of the King's Usher
> and
> > Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry II, Sir Ranulph de Broc. Her
> > brother Robert later inherited the role as Chief Marshall for King John.
> > Interestingly her sister's IPM reveals that Clemence was pregnant on her
> > marriage to William de Malesours. This indicates that her son and heir,
> > Auger, was a mantle-child and as such illegitimate. He would have had to
> > have been granted land because he could not inherit it. However in the
> > following IPMs he appears to be accepted as an heir of his aunt. Clemence
> > went on to have three more sons. The Broc and Turnham families appear to
> > have been well favoured by John. Clemence's niece, Beatrix was married to
> > John's cousin Ralph de Fay, son of the Seneschal of Poitou for Eleanor of
> > Aquitaine.  Clemence' brother in law, Stephen de Turnham was Seneschal of
> > Anjou and in 1215  the king gave 300 marks for her sister Edelina's
> > remarriage  [H&G, v.5 p508].

> > 38 Hen III Domina de Chetindon [in Brevi]; Sibilla de Brok' [in
> > Inquisitione] Extenta terrae, et de eschaea & c
> > Inquisitio facta coram Abbate de Persor', Vicecomite salop et Stephano de
> > Butterlegg' Escaetore ejusdem comitatus. Dicunt [juratores] per
> sacramentum
> > suum quod Sibilla de Brok tenuit duas carucatas terrae cum pertinentiis in
> > Chettynton de domino rege in capite. Item dicunt quod praedicta Sibilla
> > obiit sine haerede de corpore suo
> > procreato. Sed habuit duas sorores seniores se, videlicit, Edelinam
> seniorem
> > et Clementiam juniorem et praedicta Edelina habuit tres filias maritatas
> in
> > comitabus Sussex et Surr quarum nomina ignorant, et bene sciunt quod
> > Nicholaus de Wauncy est consanguineus unius praedictarum filiarum,
> Johannes
> > de Bendig' alterius, et Petrus de Hatot' tertiae " et dicunt quod predicta
> > Clementia, soror praedictae Sibillae, habuit quatuor filios, videlicit,
> > Augerum de quo predicta Clementia pregnans fuit die quo Willielmus de
> > Maleseveres quondam maritus praedictae Clementiae ipsam desponsavit, et
> > alios tres in legitimo matrimonio procreatos, videlicet, Thomas seniorem,
> > qui ante obitum suum procreavit quendam filium de uxore sua legitima,
> nomine
> > Willielmum, Simonem medium, et Adam juniorem; unde nesciunt si terra
> > praedicta sit eschaeta domini Regis, necne, sed in arbitrio consilii
> domini
> > Regis sit. Salop

> > IPM Isabella alias Sibilla de Broc 40 Hen III
> > Dicunt[juratores] quod Sibilla nullum haeredum de corpore suo procreatum
> > habuit; sed habuit tres sorores, scilicet, Edelinam, Aliciam et
> Clementiam.
> > Et ignorant utrum Edelina habuit haeredum de se vel non. Et Alicia habuit
> > duas filias, scilicet, Emmam et Feliciam.Emma vero habuit unum filium,
> > scilicet Petrum de Hautoft. Et Felicia habuit unum filium, scilicet
> > Nicholaum de Wancy. Et Clementia habuit unum filium, scilicet Angerum de
> > Tatelinton. Et dicunt quod isti tres sunt propinquiores haeredes ejusdem
> > Sibillae et sunt plenae aetatis. Salop.

> > Predictae Sibilla obiit sine harede de se. Et habuit tres sorores haeredes
> > suos, videlicit, Edelinam quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham; et Aliciam
> > quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor Willielmi
> > Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suum quod nesciunt
> > nominare haeredes preadictae Edelinae quae fuit uxor Stephani de Turnham;
> et
> > Aliciam quae fuit uxor Willielmi Harang; et Clementiam quae fuit uxor
> > Willielmi Malleseveres. Unde dicunt [juratores] super sacramentum suun
> quod
> > nesciunt nominare hearedes praedictae Edelinae quia non sunt in comitatu
> > Salop. De praedicta Alicia exierunt duae filiae, scilicet, Emma senior, de
> > qua exiit Petrus Hotoft qui est unus hearedum praedictae Sibillae, et
> > Felicia junior de qua exiit Nicholaus de Wauncy unus haeredum. De
> Clementia
> > autem exiit Aungerus de Tatlinton primogenitus, unus haeredum praedictae
> > Sibillae. Dicunt etiam desicut Aungerus est de sorore, et Nicholaus et
> > Petrus sunt de neptibus, eis videtur quod Aungerus proprinquior haeres est
> > dicta Sibillae. De aetate dicunt quod Petrus de Hotoft et Nicholaus et
> > Aungerus sunt plenae aetatis. De aetate [haeredum?] praedict Edelinea
> > nesciunt cujus aetatis sint. Salop

> > 1.Sir Ranulph de Broc, Usher and Chief Marshall of the Household to Henry
> II
> > d.1187
> > + bef 1166 Damietta da. of William Goram, Lady of Chetton, d bef 1204
> >     2.Sir Robert de Broc Marshall of the King, Forester of Cannock
> >     +Margery da. of Richard Beauchamp, had issue
> >     2.Alicia de Broc
> >  *  +William Hareng of Sussex
> >     2.Lucia de Broc d.s.p.
> >     + William Maubank
> >     2.Sibil de Broc d.1255
> >     +William de Arundel
> >     2.Edelina de Broc d.1221
> >     +Stephen de Turnham of Great Berwick, Salop.d 1214, Seneschal of Anjou
> > 1186, Escort of Queen Berengaria 1193-4
> >         3.Mabel de Turnham
> >         +Hamo de Gatton
> >         3.Beatrix de Turnham
> >         +(1)Ralph de Fay d.1222 (first cousin once removed of King John)
> >      * +(2)Hugh de Neville d.1234
> >         +(3)Hugh de Playz d.1244
> >         3.Alianor de Turnham
> >         3.Alice de Turnham
> >         3.Clemence de Turnham
> >   *  2.Clemence de Broc
> >     +William FitzAuger alias Malesoures
> >         3.Auger de Tatlington
> > [Source Herald and Genealogist, v.5 p.508]

> > 1.In the IPM of Robert Waleraund, we saw that he had  rents from land in
> > Steeple Lavington. (Dicunt [juratores] quod Robertus Walleraund' habuit
> > dictam terram [in Stupellavinton] de dono dominae Matildae de Albo
> > Monasterio quondam uxoris domini Johannis filii Alani, et praedicta
> Matilda
> > habuit dictam terram in liberum maritagium de domina Clementia de Verdun
> > matre sua). This land is called Fiffhide Verdun in the IPM of John
> Walraund.
> > Robert Waleraund also held lands in Tatelington villa, Wiltshire. Clemence
> > le Broc's son was 'of Tatlinton,' Wiltshire.

> > 2.Robert Waleraund appears to have acquired this land by confiscation from
> > Hugh de Neville. After his wife, Joan de Cornhill died, Hugh de Neville's
> > grandfather was married to Clemence de Broc's niece Beatrix. During the
> > second marriage he held his former wife's lands by courtesy of England.

> > Barony of Stogursey
> > 1.William de Curci d.1171
> >     2.William de Curci b.1168 d.1194 s.p.
> >     2.Alice de Curci b c 1170
> >     + Henry de Cornhill d.1193
> >         3. Joan de Cornhill b c 1186 coheir of her mother d abt 1223
> >      * +.Hugh de Neville d.1234 (married secondly Beatrice de Turnham)
> >             4.John de Neville d.1246
> >                 5. Hugh de Neville of age 1256. During the Baron's War his
> > lands were confiscated and granted to Robert Waleraund. Hugh regained 2/3
> of
> > it in 1266.
> >      + Warin FitzGerold d1216
> >          3. Margaret
> >         +  Baldwin de Riviers d.1216
> >         +  Fawkes de Breate controlled all of Alice de Curci's lands until
> > his fall in1222 when they were divided between Joan and Margaret.
> > [Source Sanders p.143]

> > 3.Paul mentioned that in 1216 Nicholas de Verdun's lands were confiscated
> > and held by Ralph de Hareng. Clemence de Broc's sister was married to a
> > William Hareng.

> > I realise that all these are loose associations pointing in the direction
> of
> > Clemence de Broc and time is needed to digest all the information.
> However,
> > timing, situation, family connections make her an ideal candidate as
> mother
> > of Joan. There is even circumstantial evidence which ties her in with
> > Clemence de Verdun.

> > Cheers

> > Rosie

>>  Does this perhaps rest on new evidence in the long spell since
>  > Richard Borthwick's article of 8 Dec 99 <re: Clere/Fay/Rus/Turnham>?

>CP VIII , p622 note (g) gives the strongest link I have seen between between
>Ralph de Fay, Poitou, and the Turnhams. It deals with the dispute about the
>custody and marriage of the heirs of Robert de Meinill, a son and daughter,
>which the King granted to Robert de Turnham on 15 Dec 1207. The custody and
>marriage was sold on to Ralph de Fay, and between 1218-1220 it was in
>dispute  between Ralph de Fay and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is quite
>a complex case but I quote the nub of it here for those who don't have
>access to CP.

>Curia Regis Roll 71 Mich 3-4 Hn III (1219), m.7. Ralph de Fay v. Archbishop
>of Canterbury, for the custody of the land and heirs of Robert de Meisnill ;
>the plaintiff says that Robert de Turnham bought the custody from from King
>John for 1000 marks, and Robert gave it to the plaintiff (Fay), with the
>marriage of the heir to marry to his daughter (Fay's) for 500 marks and 100
>Poitevin pounds ; and he produced Robert's deed. And he says that King John
>made the grant during the vacancy of the archbishopric, the kings charter
>being enrolled in the Exchequer, where Robert paid his fine in full. The
>Archbishop claims the custody as belonging to the church, because William
>Paynel, chief lord of the fees of the said Robert, gave the whole fee of
>Robert de Meisnill to Hubert, late Archbishop ; and he produces Paynel's
>deed ; he also produces a charter of King John, granting to S, Archbishop
>the whole fee that Robert de Mednull held of William Paynel, which fee the
>said William gave to H,. late Archbishop, namely the fee of seven knights,
>to hold to him and hid successors, with wardship, homages, services etc. ;
>he ought not answer without the King. The plaintiff says that the grant to
>Robert de Turnham was made and enrolled before the charter to the
>Archbishop. In answer to a question he says he has been in seisin of the
>heir, but not the land; he had the heir for three years, and afterwards when
>he went to Poitou, he committed him to Stephen de Turnham.

>Rot. Chart. vol. i, p.173, Robert de Turnham was granted the marriage of the
>heirs, to be married to his nearest relations - namely his nephews
>(nepotibus) or nieces (neptibus). [Presumably these were the children of
>Stephen de Turnham, his younger brother.]

>Cheers

>Rosie

>Cris, I don't know whether you saw the post from John Parsons where he gives
>the names of Raoul de Faye's children - he had a son, Ralph and a daughter,
>Eustache. I  reproduce the relevant part below.

>"Raoul or Ralph de Fay was a maternal uncle of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a
>younger son of the viscount Aimeri I of Chatellheraut (d. 1151) and
>Maubergeonne a.k.a. Dangereuse (sometimes said to have been a dau. of the
>seigneur of l'Isle-Bouchard).  The seigneurie of Faye came to Raoul by his
>marriage to Elisabeth,  dame de Faye-la-Vineuse, by whom he indeed had a son
>Raoul/Ralph, and also a daughter Eustache.  Raoul served his niece as
>seneschal in Poitou, and witnessed a number of her charters on Poitevin
>matters.

>See Sidney Painter, *Feudalism and Liberty Essays*, p. 85, and also the
>difficult-to-find "Chronologie historique des vicomtes de Chatellerault
>avant la fin du XIIIe siecle, d'apres les documents inedits," by Dom.
>Francois  Chamard, in the _Memoires de la societe des antiquaires de
>l'Ouest_, vol. 25 (1870-71), pp. 79-121, esp. 107-08, 121. John Parsons "

>Cheers

>Rosie

>The Frey family who came to America in 1675. Tells a story which has been
>pass down thru the family from 1680 to Sarah Fry b 1853 d 1930.
>Sarah Fry of Doylestown/Morristown, PA in 1926 wrote this story with more on
>the family in America to Mr. Hocker and later copy by Lafayette Fry in 1947
>for the Lancaster County, PA Historical Society.

>That Heinrich Frey b abt 1655 Altheim, Province of Alsace Loraine, Germany
>was a descendant of  William Tell/Fry.

>Sarah's story goes:

>"William Tell who when came in colitoon with gessler govenor of Schreitz an
>un under Albert 1st of Austra. The hat of Austria was place on a pole in the
>market place and the Swiss were ordered to salute it. William Tell
>refused.Then he was orderd by gessler to put in jeopardy the life of his son
>Heinrich by shooting an apple placed as a target on his son head.
>of couse gessler thought that William Tell would injure or kill his child.
>He knew that  Tell was a patriot of all patriots. He took this means of
>avenging himself and not knowing Tell felt safe in promising him that in and
>not injure the boy. Both should go free of immprovment Tell was  Loak to
>make the attemp But where he  thought of his wife and children at home. He
>selected two arrows one in bow and the other under the arm. Telll was so
>overjoyed when he succceeded in hittng the apple thas he Exclaimed "ICLE
>BIRR FRY" (I am free) and from that time on bore the name Fry.
>When gessler saw the arrow under his arm he asked what  that  ? (can not
>make out what she wrote here. I think was) for
>William Tell replied. Had I killed or injured my child. The second arrow was
>in tended for  gessler.
>Gessler immediately ordered him imprisoned. But he esscaped"

>Now can anyone tell if this true or just a story/legend?
>If true can anyone tell my more about William Tell/Fry?

> (Adrian I gather you're not around just now, but in case you are...?)

> Thanks.

> Cris

> Cris wrote,

> > Feeling that a question raised under headers affecting other lines
> > (e.g. <Clere>, <Dauntsey>, <Broc>) might be missed by friends here
> > interested and able to help, I'd like to ask whether anyone may be
> > able to recall the location of a posting of Adrian Channing's giving,
> > as Richard Borthwick said in Feb 1999, what may be evidential clues
> > for Ralph de Fay (of Bramley, etc., d. by ca. 1210) as the son of
> > Raoul de Faye (of Faye-la-Vineuse, d. probably by ca. 1190)?

> > (Adrian I gather you're not around just now, but in case you are...?)

> > Thanks.

> > Cris

> Here is a copy of my message, plus my notes on this family, which I have
> not looked at for a while (use fixed font, eg Courier):

> message of Feb '99

> I have been given the following information, not verified by me:

> Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
> Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
> ]
> Ralph de Fay (Excerptae. Rot. Fin 1.25) = Beatrice,  d. of Stephen de
> Turnham (2nd husband Hugh de Plaiz)

> and

> Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey,  was given by Henry II to
> Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
> Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
> John de Fay held it in 1223 .  He died in 1241 and the manor was divided
> between his 2 sister, Maude de Clere and Phillipa de Fay who had Bramley -
> her husband was William Neville whose daughter Beatrice married William
> Wintershill, lord of Wintershull (Winter's Hall ) in Bramley.

> Maud's moiety (she died in 1250) passed to her daughter Alice and then to
> Alice's daughter Agatha and William Longespee (Earl of Salisbury);  their
> daughter Alice was wife of Richard Breus who granted it in 1266 to Maud
> Longespee.  In 1271 Richard and Alice Breus conveyed it to William Breus
> and wife Mary in exchange for Akenham, Suffolk.  Mary died in 1236, her
> grandson Thomas d. 1396 (sp) when it descended to George Breus,  son of
> John (brother of Thomas de Breus).  George died 1418 and the Cookseys
> became heirs of Agnes, sister of George de Breus. Cooksey d. 1445/6 when
it
> passed to his widow Alice and then to Hugh Cooksey's sister,  Joyce
> Beauchamp and from her to the Winters of Wych.

> This seems to have come from "History of Surrey" by H E Malden. The
account
> appears to be a little muddled, but also may contain valuable information.

> ==========

>  ALMERIC/AIMERY I (c1076-7 Nov 1151 l'Abbey de Notre Dame de
>  Noyers-sur-Cher) de Chatellheraut; s of BOSO III de la
>  Rochfoucauld by Alienor de Thouars m 1109 Maubergeonne (aka
>  Dangereuse) sometimes said to have been a d of the sgr of
>  l'Isle-Bouchard
>  ¦
>  +--------------------------------------------+
>  ¦              ¦                             ¦
>  SON            RAOUL/RALPH; yngr son; sgr de 1)dau
>                 Fay in right of his wife;     2)Alienor of Chatellerault
>                 maternal uncle of Eleanor of  (1103? Chatellerault,
>                 Aquitaine and to whom he      Vienne->March 1129/30) m
>                 served as senechal in Poitou; GUILLAUME VIII/X d'Aquitaine
>                 Probably the RALPH de Fay of  (-9 April 1137)
>                 Poitou who held 3 knights
>                 fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls
>                 1210.2); m Elizabeth dame de
>                 Faye-la-Vinesue
>                 ¦
>                 ¦
>  +-----------------------------+
>  ¦                             ¦
>  RALPH/RAOUL de Fay (-1223)    Eustache
>  of Bramley m Beatrice d of
>  STEPHEN de Turnham; She m2
>  HUGH de PLAIX
>  ¦
>  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------C
>  JOHN (-1241)   Maud/Maltida de Fay (-1249) m1 WILLIAM de BRAOSE (-1210
>                 Corfe Castle, starved by k JOHN) of Bramber and of Brecon
>                 s&h of WILLIAM (-9 Aug 1211 Corbeil nr Paris bur 10th
Abbey
>                 of St Victor, Paris) Ld of Braiose (now Briouze) Normandy
>                 by Maud de St Valery (-1210 starved Corfe) `Lady of La
>                 Haie' m2 ROGER III& de Clere (-1250) of Sivelington, Yks;
>                 Shere and Bramley, Sy & Ludborough, Lincs
>                 m¦1 m¦2
>  +---------------+   +---------------------------------------------------B
>  ¦
>  JOHN de BRAOSE (-1232) Ld of Bramber and
>  Gower; m 1219 Margaret d of Llewelyn ap
>  Iorwerth Pr of N Wales (she m2 WALTER de
>  CLIFFORD (-1263) and by him had d&h Maud m
>  WILLIAM LONGESPEE, This Maud was probably
>  ward of her half br WILLIAM de BRAOSE&)
>  ¦
>  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------A
>  ¦
>  WILLIAM de BRAOSE/BREUS (<15 Jul 1224-6 Jan 1290/1); s&h; Sir; Ld BREWOSE
>  (cr ?1290) From many law suits he seems to have attempted to appropreate
>  the property of Maltida Clifford&, probably his ward; With his br RICHARD
>  he exchanged Akenham manor for Bramley manor, a property which devoleved
>  on his issue by m2; m1 Alina of Thorganby manor, Yorks d of THOMAS de
>  MULTON of Burgh-on-Sands by Maud d&h of HUBERT de VAUX of Gilsland ; m2
>  Agnes of Woodlands manor, Dorset d of NICHOLAS de Moels of Cadbury,
>  Somerset by Hawise d&ch of JAMES de NEWMARCH of Cadbury & wdw of JOHN de
>  BOTREAUX ; m3 <= 1271 Mary (-1326) of Werthorpe, Yorks d of ROBERT de Ros
>  of Helmsley by Isabel d&h of WILLIAM D'AUBIGNY of Belvoir
>  m¦1
>  WILLIAM (<1270-shortly <1 May
>  1326) 2Ld; Sir; s&h; Ld of
>  Bramber and Gower; m1 Agnes;
>  m2 <24 Apr 1317 Elizabeth
>  (c1296-<24 Aug 1328 sp) d&h
>  of Sir RAYMUND de SULLY of
>  Sully, Glamorgan (after his
>  death SIMON de MONTFORT had
>  lic to m her)
>  m¦1?
>   ¦
>   +-------------+
>   ¦             ¦ds&ch:
>  WILLIAM (l     1)Joan (-?11 May 1324 St
>  1306-?1320)    Benet's Abbey, Holm, Nfk) m1
>  m Mary »       <=1301 JAMES de BOHUN (-1306)
>  (THOMAS »      of Midhurst; m2 Sir RICHARD
>  (PETER))       FOLIOT of Gressenhall, Nfk
>                 2)Aline (c1290-<21 Aug 1331)
>                 m1 1298, Swansea, Sir JOHN de
>                 MOWBRAY (-23 Mar 1321/2 Hung
>                 after bat of Boroughbridge)
>                 Ld MOWBRAY, of Axholme, Lincs
>                 m2 Sir RICHARD de Peshale

> A:
> -------------------------------+
>  ¦                             ¦
>  ¦                             JOHN de BRAOSE
>  ¦                             /BREUS of
>  ¦                             Brecon
>  ¦
>  RICHARD de BRAOSE/BREUS
>  (<1232-<18 Jun 1292 bur
>  Woodbridge ) Sir; m 1261x64
>  Alice le Rus& (-shortly <28
>  Jan 1300/1 bur Woodbridge)
>  wdw of RICHARD (imp 27 Dec
>  1261) s of WILLIAM LONGESPEE*
>  (-1249/50)
>  ¦
>  +-----------------------------+
>  ¦                             d m ROGER de
>  ¦                             COLVILE
>  ¦                             ¦
>  ¦                             ¦
>  ¦                             ¦
>  GILES BRAOSE/BREUS            ¦
>  (c1272-shortly <6 Feb         ¦
>  1310/1); s&h; Sir; Held       ¦
>  Ludborough, Lincs; Akenham    ¦
>  and Whittingham, Sfk;         ¦
>  Stinton, Nfk; m1?  Katherine  ¦
>  d of Sir LAURENCE de          ¦
>  Huntingfield; m(2?) Joan d of ¦
>  RICHARD de Beaumont of        EDMOND (1288-)
>  Witnesham, Sfk
>  ¦
>  +---------------+
>  RICHARD (-     ¦¦
>  1302); s&h;    ¦JOHN (1307)
>  probably died  ROBERT (-<
>  young          1325)

> B:
> --
>  ¦
>  Agatha de Clere (-<1250);
>  od&h; m WILLIAM le RUS (-1253)
>  of Stinton, Nfk and Akenham &
>  Whittingham, Sfk »
>  ¦
>  Alice le Rus& (1247-1300x28
>  Jan 1301); od&h and h of
>  maternal g-parents; m1
>  1260/61 Sir RICHARD (-shortly
>  <27 Dec 1261 sp) 2s of Sir
>  WILLIAM LONGESPEE (>1205-7
>  Feb 1249/0) by Idonea
>  (-c1220) d&h of RICHARD de
>  Camville; m2 1261x64 Sir
>  RICHARD BROUSE/BREUSE&

> C:
> -+
>  Philippia m
>  WILLIAM
>  NEVILLE
>  ¦
>  Beatrice
>  Neville m
>  WILLIAM
>  WINTERSHILL,
>  Ld of

> ==========

>>  Feeling that a question raised under headers affecting other lines
>>  (e.g. <Clere>, <Dauntsey>, <Broc>) might be missed by friends here
>>  interested and able to help, I'd like to ask whether anyone may be
>>  able to recall the location of a posting of Adrian Channing's giving,
>>  as Richard Borthwick said in Feb 1999, what may be evidential clues
>>  for Ralph de Fay (of Bramley, etc., d. by ca. 1210) as the son of
>>  Raoul de Faye (of Faye-la-Vineuse, d. probably by ca. 1190)?

>>  (Adrian I gather you're not around just now, but in case you are...?)

>>  Thanks.

>>  Cris

>Here is a copy of my message, plus my notes on this family, which I have
>not looked at for a while (use fixed font, eg Courier):

>message of Feb '99

>I have been given the following information, not verified by me:

>Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
>Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
>]
>Ralph de Fay (Excerptae. Rot. Fin 1.25) = Beatrice,  d. of Stephen de
>Turnham (2nd husband Hugh de Plaiz)

>and

>Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey,  was given by Henry II to
>Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
>Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
>John de Fay held it in 1223 .  He died in 1241 and the manor was divided
>between his 2 sister, Maude de Clere and Phillipa de Fay who had Bramley -
>her husband was William Neville whose daughter Beatrice married William
>Wintershill, lord of Wintershull (Winter's Hall ) in Bramley.

>Maud's moiety (she died in 1250) passed to her daughter Alice and then to
>Alice's daughter Agatha and William Longespee (Earl of Salisbury);  their
>daughter Alice was wife of Richard Breus who granted it in 1266 to Maud
>Longespee.  In 1271 Richard and Alice Breus conveyed it to William Breus
>and wife Mary in exchange for Akenham, Suffolk.  Mary died in 1236, her
>grandson Thomas d. 1396 (sp) when it descended to George Breus,  son of
>John (brother of Thomas de Breus).  George died 1418 and the Cookseys
>became heirs of Agnes, sister of George de Breus. Cooksey d. 1445/6 when it
>passed to his widow Alice and then to Hugh Cooksey's sister,  Joyce
>Beauchamp and from her to the Winters of Wych.

>This seems to have come from "History of Surrey" by H E Malden. The account
>appears to be a little muddled, but also may contain valuable information.

>==========

>  ALMERIC/AIMERY I (c1076-7 Nov 1151 l'Abbey de Notre Dame de
>  Noyers-sur-Cher) de Chatellheraut; s of BOSO III de la
>  Rochfoucauld by Alienor de Thouars m 1109 Maubergeonne (aka
>  Dangereuse) sometimes said to have been a d of the sgr of
>  l'Isle-Bouchard
>  ¦
>  +--------------------------------------------+
>  ¦              ¦                             ¦
>  SON            RAOUL/RALPH; yngr son; sgr de 1)dau
>                 Fay in right of his wife;     2)Alienor of Chatellerault
>                 maternal uncle of Eleanor of  (1103? Chatellerault,
>                 Aquitaine and to whom he      Vienne->March 1129/30) m
>                 served as senechal in Poitou; GUILLAUME VIII/X d'Aquitaine
>                 Probably the RALPH de Fay of  (-9 April 1137)
>                 Poitou who held 3 knights
>                 fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls
>                 1210.2); m Elizabeth dame de
>                 Faye-la-Vinesue
>                 ¦
>                 ¦
>  +-----------------------------+
>  ¦                             ¦
>  RALPH/RAOUL de Fay (-1223)    Eustache
>  of Bramley m Beatrice d of
>  STEPHEN de Turnham; She m2
>  HUGH de PLAIX
>  ¦

>http://ww2.surreycc.gov.uk/lib/surreylib.nsf/webpagesall/Surrey+Libra...
>penDocument

>search under Author name Malden H E (Henry Elliot)

>There are about a dozen sections to his history of Surrey, it should be the
>Guildford section which covers Bramley.

>I have not seen this work, what was in my message was what was given to me.

> A Channing <AChann...@compuserve.com> wrote --

>>Cris wrote,

>>>  Feeling that a question raised under headers affecting other lines
>>>  (e.g. <Clere>, <Dauntsey>, <Broc>) might be missed by friends here
>>>  interested and able to help, I'd like to ask whether anyone may be
>>>  able to recall the location of a posting of Adrian Channing's giving,
>>>  as Richard Borthwick said in Feb 1999, what may be evidential clues
>>>  for Ralph de Fay (of Bramley, etc., d. by ca. 1210) as the son of
>>>  Raoul de Faye (of Faye-la-Vineuse, d. probably by ca. 1190)?

>>>  (Adrian I gather you're not around just now, but in case you are...?)

>>>  Thanks.

>>>  Cris

>>Here is a copy of my message, plus my notes on this family, which I have
>>not looked at for a while (use fixed font, eg Courier):

>>message of Feb '99

>>I have been given the following information, not verified by me:

>>Ralph de Fay of Poitou, kinsman of Queen Eleanor, held 3 knights fees in
>>Bramley, Surrey (Pipe Rolls 1210/2) of the Honour of Dudley.
>>]
>>Ralph de Fay (Excerptae. Rot. Fin 1.25) = Beatrice,  d. of Stephen de
>>Turnham (2nd husband Hugh de Plaiz)

>>and

>>Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey,  was given by Henry II to
>>Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
>>Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
>>John de Fay held it in 1223 .  He died in 1241 and the manor was divided
>>between his 2 sister, Maude de Clere and Phillipa de Fay who had Bramley -
>>her husband was William Neville whose daughter Beatrice married William
>>Wintershill, lord of Wintershull (Winter's Hall ) in Bramley.

>>Maud's moiety (she died in 1250) passed to her daughter Alice and then to
>>Alice's daughter Agatha and William Longespee (Earl of Salisbury);  their
>>daughter Alice was wife of Richard Breus who granted it in 1266 to Maud
>>Longespee.  In 1271 Richard and Alice Breus conveyed it to William Breus
>>and wife Mary in exchange for Akenham, Suffolk.  Mary died in 1236, her
>>grandson Thomas d. 1396 (sp) when it descended to George Breus,  son of
>>John (brother of Thomas de Breus).  George died 1418 and the Cookseys
>>became heirs of Agnes, sister of George de Breus. Cooksey d. 1445/6 when it
>>passed to his widow Alice and then to Hugh Cooksey's sister,  Joyce
>>Beauchamp and from her to the Winters of Wych.

>>This seems to have come from "History of Surrey" by H E Malden. The account
>>appears to be a little muddled, but also may contain valuable information.

>>==========

>>  ALMERIC/AIMERY I (c1076-7 Nov 1151 l'Abbey de Notre Dame de
>>  Noyers-sur-Cher) de Chatellheraut; s of BOSO III de la
>>  Rochfoucauld by Alienor de Thouars m 1109 Maubergeonne (aka
>>  Dangereuse) sometimes said to have been a d of the sgr of
>>  l'Isle-Bouchard
>>  ¦
>>  +--------------------------------------------+
>>  ¦              ¦                             ¦
>>  SON            RAOUL/RALPH; yngr son; sgr de 1)dau
>>                 Fay in right of his wife;     2)Alienor of Chatellerault
>>                 maternal uncle of Eleanor of  (1103? Chatellerault,
>>                 Aquitaine and to whom he      Vienne->March 1129/30) m
>>                 served as senechal in Poitou; GUILLAUME VIII/X d'Aquitaine
>>                 Probably the RALPH de Fay of  (-9 April 1137)
>>                 Poitou who held 3 knights
>>                 fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls
>>                 1210.2); m Elizabeth dame de
>>                 Faye-la-Vinesue
>>                 ¦
>>                 ¦
>>  +-----------------------------+
>>  ¦                             ¦
>>  RALPH/RAOUL de Fay (-1223)    Eustache
>>  of Bramley m Beatrice d of
>>  STEPHEN de Turnham; She m2
>>  HUGH de PLAIX
>>  ¦

> [SNIP]

> Many thanks, Adrian!  I do think Rosie's point about the possibility
> of a missing generation pins a tail on the crucial donkey.  There's
> been a tendency among us to confuse (a) Raoul de Faye (d. prob. by
> 1190) with (b) Ralph de Fay of Bramley (d. by 1210), and the latter
> with (c) his s. Ralph de Fay (d. ca. 1222-3), when the problem in
> front of us is exactly that evidence for the relation -- if any --
> between (a) and (b) appears wanting.  I.e. I fear that <RAOUL/RALPH;
> yngr son> of <Almeric/Aimery I> above is not the same as the Ralph
> <who held 3 knights fees in Bramley (Pipe Rolls 1210.2)>.

>>Bramley, in the Blackheath Hundreds of Surrey,  was given by Henry II to
>>Ralph de Fay who was dispossessed during the war between the king and
>>Prince Henry. King John granted it to Ralph, son of the above, whose son
>>John de Fay held it in 1223.

> This sequence of what by this account is 3 gens. would be reassuring
> if accurate; the trick's to verify that the same generational
> drift/slippage hasn't happened here too.  If gift by <Henry II> can
> be confirmed -- and obviously if accompanied by a precise date -- we
> might be on our way (since Henry II d. 1189), though it's likely that
> Ralph de Fay of Bramley (d. say 1210) himself, probably having at
> least attained his majority before Henry's death, may well be the
> first recipient and _re_-grantee of Bramley, there being only 2
> generations involved, with Raoul de Faye (d. prob. by 1190) not
> figuring as superficially seems here.

> So -- more work to do, but you've set us on some good trails!

> Yes, John, thanks for the c[l]ues, and the Pipe line's the place to go!

>>At the Surrey lending library

>>http://ww2.surreycc.gov.uk/lib/surreylib.nsf/webpagesall/Surrey+Libra...
>>penDocument

>>search under Author name Malden H E (Henry Elliot)

>>There are about a dozen sections to his history of Surrey, it should be the
>>Guildford section which covers Bramley.

>>I have not seen this work, what was in my message was what was given to me.

> This looks to be very helpful.  Sadly -- unless someone here's found
> a happy workaround -- through no fault of yours, I'm sure, this ww2
> page appears to be an ex-parrot (Error 500).  (I'll ferret out the
> Malden at the Bodleian, but there'll be a brief -- perhaps extended
> -- pause, and if anyone's a copy or notes from it at hand re Fay(e)
> it would be good to know.)

> Rosie --

>>A point which I am uncertain about is whether Stephen de Turnham was
>>Seneschal of Anjou or Poitou. I have seen him described as of both.

> -- yes, I've been wondering about that.  From K John on, the
> difference is far from trivial, wot?!

>>The only line known to me to be connected with Raoul de Fay of Bramber at
>>this point in time is his son, Ralph (Raoul also) granted Bramber in
>>December 4, 1199.

> Bramber, really?  (Not Bramley?)  Implying a heavy connection with
> Braose at this date, then?

> The lore recited by O'Hart and Pernoud is familiar and friendly if
> not downright fuzzy, but the one passage that would seem to bear on a
> possible relation between the Faye-la-Vineuse cluster and the English
> line is O'Hart's --

>>"... Radulphus or Ralph De Fay.... held until the 19th of Henry II, when
>>taking part with Prince Henry against his father, he was disseized,
>>and Bromely was granted to Baldwin De Bethune. "

> -- _if_  by "Bromely" he means Bramley.  But here too it's not
> dead-certain that the "Radulphus or Ralph De Fay" referred to isn't
> Ralph who d. ca. 1210.  Still, a search of records relating to
> Baldwin De Bethune might stir up something fresh....

> Cris
> .
> --

> Rosie

> > Just a note of warning about the pedigree. Maud de Fay did not marry
> William
> > de Braose. This is a mistake which has been discussed on SGM and can be
> > found in the archives.

> Thanks for the warning.  My notes are from about Feb 1999, so its quite
> possible I missed the above.  I will try to find time to look into it.

> Some of the information I used to prepare the chart on the de Fay/Braose
> came from material sent to me by  Paul. W.  Mackenzie.   Paul has not only
> given me permission to quote from his work, but has sent me a copy of his
> updated and splendid e-book on the Braose family giving many ipms writs
> fines, concentrating primarily on  the 14th century family of the de
Brewes
> of Wiston, Sussex.  Many of the early entries are based on the work of
> D.G.C. Elwes

> The following ipm is of  Maltida de Fay.  In a message from Doug Thompson,
> he stated that D.G.C. Elwes was incorrect in giving William de Braose
> (-1210) as married to Maltida de Fay.

> Doug Thompson's Web page gives a William de Braose as married to Matilda
de
> Clare a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare and attributes four
> issue to them, although he also states that this Matilda was, in 1219,
> married to Rhys Gryg, son of Lord Rhys  I am not sure how this works, -
> William and Matilda must have had four children in 1219/20, or was Rhys
> Gryg her second marriage, in which case her marriage to William  must have
> been annulled?  This Richard Earl of Clare is presumably the one CP calls
> the 6th earl (died Nov 1217) and listed under Hertford; 3rd earl.

> I guess the remarks in  parenthesis are D.G.C. Elwes, so ignore them for
> the time being.

> 1261
> Inq. p.m. 46 Hen III, No. 1 on Richard Langespeye deceased. The writ being
> dated 27 Dec, 46 Hen III[1261]
> Inquisition-John de Fay held in chief of the King the manor of Brumleyle
> Surrey, by the service of three knight's fees. After the death of said
> John, the manor descended to his two sisters, to wit, Maltida and
> Philippia, and it was divided between them. Of the aforesaid Maltida there
> issued a daughter, by the name of Agatha, who had issue Alice who was the
> wife of Richard Langespey; and the said Richard and Alice held a moiety of
> the said manor of Brumlelie in chief of the King by service of one
knight's
> fee and a half.
> _De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes_

> Thus we have:

> Roger de Clere (-<1250) held a moiety of Bramley, Surrey in right of his
> wife  Maltida (-<=1250); She had inherited it from her brother John de Fay
> (the other moiety to their sister Philippia); Maltida had a dau Agatha who
> m William le Rus who in turn left Alice (b c1248) heir to her maternal
> grandmother and who m Richard Langespeye (-<=1261)

> CP Vol II p 304:

> Sir Richard Breuse, a younger son of John de Breuse, Lord of Bramber and
> Gower, by Margaret d of Llewelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, b.
> before 1232 ... He m before 9 Sep 1265 Alice widow of Richard Lungespeye
> (who d.s.p. shortly before 27 Dec 1261) and d and h of William le Rus of
> Stinton, Norfolk, Akenham and Whittingham, Suffolk by Agatha d&h of Roger
> de Clere of Bramley, Surrey and Ludborough, co Lincoln.  She was b. 25 Dec
> 1245 or 1247 or 1 Jan 1245/6  He died before 18 June 1292.  His widow d
> shortly before 28 Jan 1300/1.  They were bur. in Woodbridge Priory.

> I've run out of time to work on this further tonight, here are a few more
> extracts from Paul's work (to 1300)

> 1253
> Inq. p.m. 37 Hen 111, No. 49, on William de Rus, deceased:-
> Lincoln- He held no land of the King of his wife's inheritance, but he
held
> Ludberg "by his wife" of Roger de Clere. Alice daughter and heir age 6 at
> Christmas next. The king now holds Ludberg = Lutheburgh.
> De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

> 1260
> Inq. p.m. 44 Hen 111, No. 15 on William de Rus
> Norfolk - Manor of Stinton held of William de Say by service of one knight
> worth 300 pounds. Alice dau and heir, age 14.
> Lincoln - Manor of Luberg held of William de Albiniaco. Alice dau and
heir,
> age 15
> Suffolk - Manors of A'Kenham, Hasketone, Cloptone, held of Lord R. de
> Bygod, Earl of Norfolk of the honour of Lancaster. Alice dau and heir, age
> 14
> Suffolk - Manor of Wytingham, held as above, Manor of Stradebrok, held of
> Richard King of Almain, of the honour of Eye. Byrcholt, pertaining to the
> same manor, held of William de Huntingefeld. Alice dau and heir, aged 14
at
> the circumcision 44 Hen 111 (Wednesday, 1 Jan 1260)
> De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
> 1264
> Coram Rege, 49 Hen 111, m. ii
> Trial between Maltida Langespeye and Richard de Breus and Alice his wife
> which settles the date of Richard and Alice's marriage as being between
the
> years 46 and 49 Hen 111 (1261-1264). Maltida sues Richard and Alice for
> ejecting her men from the manors of Stradefford, Stinton, Bromleigh,
> Lutheburg, Sevelington, which she had to farm. The defendants made many
> defaults and the Sheriff was ordered to bring them up in Hilary Term.
> De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

> 1267
> Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 51-52 Hen 111 m. 12
> Trial between Richard de Brewode and Richard Fitz Theobald and others
> whereby the former complains of the latter coming with force and arms to
> his manor of Asketune(co. Suffolk) and burning it. The judgement was that
> the sheriff is not to fail, on account of the liberty of St. Etheldreda,
to
> distrain them by their lands, &c, and to have their bodies, &c.
> De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

> 1272
> A fine Hen 56 No. 70, between Richard de Breous and Alice his wife, and
> John Giffard and Maltida his wife, as to the manors of Akenham,
Whitingham,
> Brumleigh, Stradbrok, Clopton, Asketon, Stynton, Lubure, and Syvelyngton
in
> cos. Suffolk, York, Lincoln, Norfolk, and Surrey. They are the right of
> Alice; and Richard and Alice grant Asketon and Stinton to John Giffard and
> wife, for life of the said Maltida.
> De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

> 1272
>  A fine No. 70  56 Hen 111.
> William de Brewse granted by fine to Richard and Alice the manor of
Akenham
> and advowson, with those of Claydon and Hemingston; he granting to William
> and Mary his wife the manor of Bromley in Surrey.
> The Manors of Suffolk by Copinger
> n.b.  D.G.C. Elwes suggests the grant was the other way around which seems
> incorrect.

> 1277
> Brehuse, Ricardus de (Surrey)...husband of one of the daughters of Rogerus
> de Clere, proffers the service of one knight's fee and a half in Bromleigh
> and elsewhere, for the moiety of the lands of the said Roger performed by
> himself and one "serviens". Expedition against Lewelin Prince of Wales -
> Muster before the constable and the earl Marshall at Worchester eight days
> of St. John the Baptist, 1 July
> Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:201

> 1277
> Brehuse, Ricardus de....knight, his service and that of the 'serviens'
> appearing with him transferred by the king to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, to
> be performed under the latter in west Wales.
> Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:213

> 1282
> Breuse, Ricardus...summoned to perform military service in person against
> the welch. muster at Worchester, Whitsuntide, 17 May
> Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave. V1:223

> 1282
> Breuse, Ricardus...summoned the same. muster at Rhuddlan on Sunday the
> morrow of St. Peter ad Vincula 2 August
> Parliamentary Writs and Military Summons by Palgrave.

>You have presented some good documentation. I've made one or two comment
>below to clarify things.

>Cheers

>Rosie

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "A Channing" <AChann...@compuserve.com>
>To: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Raoul de Faye->Ralph de Fay?

>>  Some of the information I used to prepare the chart on the de Fay/Braose
>>  came from material sent to me by  Paul. W.  Mackenzie.   Paul has not only
>>  given me permission to quote from his work, but has sent me a copy of his
>>  updated and splendid e-book on the Braose family giving many ipms writs
>>  fines, concentrating primarily on  the 14th century family of the de
>Brewes
>>  of Wiston, Sussex.  Many of the early entries are based on the work of
>>  D.G.C. Elwes

>>  The following ipm is of  Maltida de Fay.  In a message from Doug Thompson,
>>  he stated that D.G.C. Elwes was incorrect in giving William de Braose
>>  (-1210) as married to Maltida de Fay.

>>  Doug Thompson's Web page gives a William de Braose as married to Matilda
>de
>>  Clare a younger daughter of Richard, Earl of Clare and attributes four
>>  issue to them, although he also states that this Matilda was, in 1219,
>>  married to Rhys Gryg, son of Lord Rhys  I am not sure how this works, -
>>  William and Matilda must have had four children in 1219/20, or was Rhys
>>  Gryg her second marriage, in which case her marriage to William  must have
>>  been annulled?  This Richard Earl of Clare is presumably the one CP calls
>>  the 6th earl (died Nov 1217) and listed under Hertford; 3rd earl.

>William de Braose to whom Maud de Clare was married died in 1210. Rhys Gryg
>must have been her second husband.

>As none of William de Braose' children (or Rhys Gryg's for that matter) were
>heir to Maud de Fay's inheritance it is highly unlikely that there was a
>Braose/Fay marriage. I think this is a case of confusion between the Clere
>and Clare names.

>  > 1250
>  > Inq. pm. 34 Hen III No 44 Maltida de Clere (wife of (1)William de Braose
>  > d1210 and (2) Roger de Clere and mother of John de Braose)
>>  Surrey - Moiety of the Manor of Bromle. Alice daughter of William le Rus,
>>  whom he had of Agatha  his wife, daughter of the said Maltida is her heir,
>>  age 2.
>>  York - Lands of Roger de Clere and Maltida de Clere his wife. They held no
>>  lands of the King in Yorkshire, but the Lord Roger held the moiety of the
>  > manor of Brumelay in the county of "Sedred", next London, of the
>  > inheritance of the Lady Maltida his wife. He held lands in Sivelington in
>  > Yorkshire of Lord Roger Bigot, Marshall. Roger de Clere had a daughter and
>>  heir Agatha, as above.
>>  _The De Braose Family by D.G.C. Elwes_

>>  I guess the remarks in  parenthesis are D.G.C. Elwes, so ignore them for
>>  the time being.

>Yes, the parentheses do not belong to the entry. There is nothing pertaining
>to the Braose family in this IPM

>>  Next lets look at the following (the only mention of de Fay in Paul's
>  > work):

>>  1261
>>  Inq. p.m. 46 Hen III, No. 1 on Richard Langespeye deceased. The writ being
>>  dated 27 Dec, 46 Hen III[1261]
>>  Inquisition-John de Fay held in chief of the King the manor of Brumleyle
>>  Surrey, by the service of three knight's fees. After the death of said
>>  John, the manor descended to his two sisters, to wit, Maltida and
>>  Philippia, and it was divided between them. Of the aforesaid Maltida there
>>  issued a daughter, by the name of Agatha, who had issue Alice who was the
>>  wife of Richard Langespey; and the said Richard and Alice held a moiety of
>>  the said manor of Brumlelie in chief of the King by service of one
>knight's
>>  fee and a half.
>>  _De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes_

>>  Thus we have:

>>  Roger de Clere (-<1250) held a moiety of Bramley, Surrey in right of his
>>  wife  Maltida (-<=1250); She had inherited it from her brother John de Fay
>>  (the other moiety to their sister Philippia); Maltida had a dau Agatha who
>>  m William le Rus who in turn left Alice (b c1248) heir to her maternal
>>  grandmother and who m Richard Langespeye (-<=1261)

>Yes, this is an accurate assessment.

>>  CP Vol II p 304:

>>  Sir Richard Breuse, a younger son of John de Breuse, Lord of Bramber and
>>  Gower, by Margaret d of Llewelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, b.
>>  before 1232 ... He m before 9 Sep 1265 Alice widow of Richard Lungespeye
>>  (who d.s.p. shortly before 27 Dec 1261) and d and h of William le Rus of
>>  Stinton, Norfolk, Akenham and Whittingham, Suffolk by Agatha d&h of Roger
>>  de Clere of Bramley, Surrey and Ludborough, co Lincoln.  She was b. 25 Dec
>>  1245 or 1247 or 1 Jan 1245/6  He died before 18 June 1292.  His widow d
>>  shortly before 28 Jan 1300/1.  They were bur. in Woodbridge Priory.

>>  I've run out of time to work on this further tonight, here are a few more
>>  extracts from Paul's work (to 1300)

>>  1253
>>  Inq. p.m. 37 Hen 111, No. 49, on William de Rus, deceased:-
>>  Lincoln- He held no land of the King of his wife's inheritance, but he
>held
>>  Ludberg "by his wife" of Roger de Clere. Alice daughter and heir age 6 at
>>  Christmas next. The king now holds Ludberg = Lutheburgh.
>>  De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

>>  1260
>>  Inq. p.m. 44 Hen 111, No. 15 on William de Rus
>>  Norfolk - Manor of Stinton held of William de Say by service of one knight
>>  worth 300 pounds. Alice dau and heir, age 14.
>>  Lincoln - Manor of Luberg held of William de Albiniaco. Alice dau and
>heir,
>>  age 15
>>  Suffolk - Manors of A'Kenham, Hasketone, Cloptone, held of Lord R. de
>>  Bygod, Earl of Norfolk of the honour of Lancaster. Alice dau and heir, age
>>  14
>>  Suffolk - Manor of Wytingham, held as above, Manor of Stradebrok, held of
>>  Richard King of Almain, of the honour of Eye. Byrcholt, pertaining to the
>>  same manor, held of William de Huntingefeld. Alice dau and heir, aged 14
>at
>>  the circumcision 44 Hen 111 (Wednesday, 1 Jan 1260)
>>  De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes
>>  1264
>>  Coram Rege, 49 Hen 111, m. ii
>>  Trial between Maltida Langespeye and Richard de Breus and Alice his wife
>>  which settles the date of Richard and Alice's marriage as being between
>the
>>  years 46 and 49 Hen 111 (1261-1264). Maltida sues Richard and Alice for
>>  ejecting her men from the manors of Stradefford, Stinton, Bromleigh,
>>  Lutheburg, Sevelington, which she had to farm. The defendants made many
>>  defaults and the Sheriff was ordered to bring them up in Hilary Term.
>>  De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

>The Matilda who sued Richard and Alice was Matilda/Maud Clifford, wife of
>William Longspee, former brother in law of Alice. She afterwards married
>John Giffard. Alice's first husband husband had granted the manor to his
>brother William and Maud for life. Richard de Braose attempted to regain his
>wife's property by force.

>>  1267
>>  Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 51-52 Hen 111 m. 12
>>  Trial between Richard de Brewode and Richard Fitz Theobald and others
>>  whereby the former complains of the latter coming with force and arms to
>>  his manor of Asketune(co. Suffolk) and burning it. The judgement was that
>>  the sheriff is not to fail, on account of the liberty of St. Etheldreda,
>to
>>  distrain them by their lands, &c, and to have their bodies, &c.
>>  De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

>>  1272
>>  A fine Hen 56 No. 70, between Richard de Breous and Alice his wife, and
>>  John Giffard and Maltida his wife, as to the manors of Akenham,
>Whitingham,
>>  Brumleigh, Stradbrok, Clopton, Asketon, Stynton, Lubure, and Syvelyngton
>in
>>  cos. Suffolk, York, Lincoln, Norfolk, and Surrey. They are the right of
>>  Alice; and Richard and Alice grant Asketon and Stinton to John Giffard and
>>  wife, for life of the said Maltida.
>>  De Braose Family, D.G.C. Elwes

>>  1272
>>   A fine No. 70  56 Hen 111.
>>  William de Brewse granted by fine to Richard and Alice the manor of
>Akenham
>>  and advowson, with those of Claydon and Hemingston; he granting to William
>>  and Mary his wife the manor of Bromley in Surrey.
>>  The Manors of Suffolk by Copinger
>>  n.b.  D.G.C. Elwes suggests the grant was the other way around which seems
>>  incorrect.

>This is covered in VCH Surrey v.3 p.83. n.45
>Feet of F. Div. Co. 56 Hen III, no 73
>Bramley was to be held of Richard and Alice by William and Mary, and after
>the death of Alice's son, Giles Breus, the manor was said to be held of his
>heirs. (CIPM 19 Edw II, no. 90), but in all subseqeunt documents the
>successors of William and Mary are said to have held it in chief (CIPM 29
>Edw I, no.52 ; CIPM 4 Edw II, no. 40 ; Cal Pat 1324-7, p. 262)

>The William de Braose (1220-1291) here is son and heir of John de Braose and
>Margaret verch Llywelyn and Richard's elder brother. Mary de Ros was his
>third wife.

>>  1277
>>  Brehuse,