Identity of Margaret, wife of Henry le Tyeys & Thomas de Monthermer

163 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 8:23:49 AM12/12/04
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

A while back, I discussed evidence regarding the possible identity of
Margaret, wife successively of Henry le Tyeys, Knt. (died 1322), 2nd
Lord Tyeys, and Thomas de Monthermer, Knt. (died 1340), 2nd Lord
Monthermer. Margaret's identity is of special interest to medieval
historians and genealogists, as her 2nd husband, Sir Thomas de
Monthermer, was a grandson of King Edward I of England. By Margaret
and Thomas' daughter, Margaret de Monthermer, wife of John Montagu,
Knt., the Monthermer family is ancestral to many living descendants
today.

In my earlier post (see copy below), I noted that both Margaret and her
first husband, Sir Henry le Tyeys, had various associations with the
family of Sir Peter de Brewes (died 1312), of Tetbury, Gloucestershire,
and his wife, Agnes de Clifford. Briefly, I found that sometime prior
to 1322, Henry le Tyeys conveyed a message to Peter de Brewes' widow,
Agnes de Clifford. Also, I found Henry le Tyeys' widow, Margaret,
associated with Agnes (de Clifford) de Brewes in a record shortly
before Margaret's marriage to Thomas de Monthermer. I queried if
Margaret le Tyeys might not have been a daughter of Peter de Brewes and
his wife, Agnes de Clifford. Such an arrangement is certainly possible
chronologically, as Peter de Brewes and his wife, Agnes, are known to
have married in 1300. Henry and Margaret le Tyeys were evidently
married in or about 1316, at which date, Margaret's age still required
that she needed a guardian. This implies Margaret was born in or after
1300. Also, it is known that Henry le Tyeys had the wardship and
marriage of Peter de Brewes' heirs, and thus he would have been in a
position to easily have married Peter de Brewes' daughter, if one was
available.

In the intervening time since my original post, I've determined that
the personal seal of Margaret le Tyeys has survived, it being attached
to a document dated 1323 during the period of her first widowhood. The
seal is described in detail by Roger Ellis in his interesting book,
Catalogue of Personal Seals in the Public Record Office, vol. 2 (1981),
pg. 108:

"P2161 Margaret widow of Henry le Tyas (Tyays) 1323

In a cusped quatrefoil, hung from a triple bush, two shields of arms:
(L) a chevron [TYEYS], the field hatched, and (R) crusilly (?) a lion
rampant, queue fourchy.

SIGIL[LUM] MARGA/RET ... YAYS (Lom)

Round, c. 23, red, tongue. Good impression but edge much damaged.
E2113/25.

We see above that Margaret le Tyeys' arms on her personal seal are
crusilly a lion rampant, queue fourchy. These arms are, of course, the
well known arms of the baronial Brewes family. As such, it appears
that Margaret was a Brewes as suspected, and doubtless the daughter of
Sir Peter de Brewes.

Interestingly, I've elsewhere found the same Brewes arms are included
on the personal seal of Anthony Shirley, Gentleman, of Preston, Sussex
dating from 1589 [see Walter de Gray Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum, 3 (1894): 513]. Anthony Shirley is a lineal descendant
of Beatrice (de Brewes) Shirley, daughter of Peter de Brewes, the
younger (died c. 1377), of Whitford, Devon and Chesham Bois and Wedon
Hill (in Amersham), Buckinghamshire.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the numerous
colonial immigrants who descend from Margaret (de Brewes) (le Tyeys) de
Monthermer. Information on specific descents down to the immigrants
can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). Please contact
me privately at my e-mail address below for particulars regarding
ordering a copy of the book.

People interested in the Brewes family should definitely visit Doug
Thompson's great website for this family which is found at the
following web address:

http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
(royala...@msn.com)

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
List of colonial immigrants descended from Margaret de Brewes (died
1349) and her second husband, Sir Thomas de Monthermer (died 1340), 2nd
Lord Monthermer:

1. Elizabeth Alsop.

2. William Asfordby.

3. William Bladen.

4. Elizabeth Bosvile.

5. Mary Bourchier.

6. Stephen Bull.

7. Charles Calvert.

8. Francis Dade.

9. Thomas Dudley.

10. Elizabeth & John Harleston.

11. Anne Humphrey.

12. Thomas Lunsford.

13. John Nelson (two descents).

14. John Oxenbridge.

15. Herbert Pelham.

16. Diane & Grey Skipwith.

17. Mary Johanna Somerset (four descents).

18. John West.

19. Thomas Wingfield.

>From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
>Subject: Re: Margaret de Monthermer
>Date: 14 Mar 2002 12:09:59 -0800
>
>Dear Rania and Chris:
>
>Since posting regarding Henry le Tyeys' conveyance from the Sturmy
>family, I've found Henry le Tyeys had conveyances from several other
>parties, some of them involving his wife, Margaret. As such, it is
>unclear if the Sturmy-Tyeys conveyance I posted represented Margaret's
>marriage settlement, or just another acquisition on the part of
>Margaret's husband. Following Henry le Tyeys' death in 1322, his
>widow Margaret married (2nd) Thomas de Monthermer, by whom she had
>surviving issue.
>
>A possible clue to the identity of Henry le Tyeys' wife, Margaret, may
>be found in Henry's acquisition of the wardship and marriage of the
>heir of Peter de Brewes (died 1312), of Tetbury, co. Gloucester.
>
>On the surface, it seems that Margaret le Tyeys could be the daughter
>of Peter and Agnes de Brewes, but the chronology seem rather tight to
>allow such a relationship. Surviving records show that Peter de
>Brewes married in 1300, to Agnes de Clifford, widow of Henry de Hoese
>(or Hussing), of Harting, Sussex. They are known to have had two
>sons, Thomas and John. My research indicates that the issue of Peter
>de Brewes eventually failed, and his lands subsequently passed to
>descendants of his older half-brother, William de Brewes. Had
>Margaret le Tyeys been Peter de Brewes' daughter, then her heirs would
>have been in line to to claim Peter de Brewes' lands. There is no
>evidence, however, that any such claim was lodged.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>E-mail: royalances...@msn.com

Note: In my original post above, I stated that the issue of Peter de
Brewes ultimately failed. Actually, it appears that only the issue of
his eldest two sons failed. Further research indicates that Peter de
Brewes had a third son who has living descendants.

the...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 10:07:10 AM12/12/04
to
Sunday, 12 December, 2004


Dear Douglas,

Many thanks for a very good post. As you know, this had become of
interest in the recent past due to the descent (probable but unproven)
of the emigrant William Farrar from Margaret's daughter Margaret (de
Monthermer) de Montagu.

The events and facts you describe mesh well with what little I
know of Piers de Braose or Brewes of Tetbury, co. Gloucs. Piers had a
well-known sister Margaret de Braose (1st wife of Sir Ralph de Camoys,
1st Lord Camoys, d. bef Jun 1336), the namesake of her mother, and
Piers' grandmother, Margaret ferch Llywelyn (dau., probably
illegitimate, of Llywelyn Fawr, prince of Aberffraw, d. 1240). It
would be surprising if Piers did NOT have a daughter named
Margaret.....

As to the involvement of relations in the family matters of Piers
de Braose's children, I find Thomas de Braose (former supporter of the
Earl of Lancaster ca. Boroughbridge) being cited at CP II:308, in that

" On 30 October [1322], he was ordered to be delivered to Ralph de
Cobham, who had stood bail for him {Calendar of Close Rolls, 1318-1323,
pp. 580, 603}. "

Ralph de Cobham was the husband of Thomas' sister Mary de Braose.
This would follow well with Henry le Tyeys having been married to
Thomas' alleged sister Margaret, and also with Henry and Thomas having
been involved together in the Lancastrian conspiracy of 1321/2.

The heraldic evidence is quite persuasive, given the above. If
the maritagium of Margaret could be traced,....

Cheers,

John

<<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 11:04:52 AM12/12/04
to
Dear John ~

Thank you for your good post.

The two coats of arms on Margaret le Tyeys' seal are easily
recognizable. Brian Timms' excellent website
(http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/stirlingST1.htm) shows that the arms
of Margaret's husband, Henry le Tyeys, were:

Argent a chevron gules

This matches the first set of arms on Margaret's seal, namely a
chevron.

Brian Timms also shows that the arms of Margaret's uncle, William de
Brewes, were:

Azure crusilly a lion double queued rampant or

This matches the second set of arms on Margaret le Tyeys' seal.

If I understand the heraldry displayed on Doug Thompson's great Braose
website, it appears that the Brewes arms above (crusilly a lion
rampant) were first adopted by John de Brewes (died 1232), lord of
Gower, husband of Margaret of Wales, daughter of Llywelyn, Prince of
North Wales. These arms were employed by later descendants of John and
Margaret de Brewes. Doug Thompson shows that John's uncle, Reynold de
Brewes, and Reynold's son, William, bore a completely different set of
arms. If correct, this means Margaret (de Brewes) (le Tyeys) de
Monthermer would necessarily be a descendant of John de Brewes and his
wife, Margaret of Wales.

Speaking of Margaret of Wales, when you have a minute, can you provide
the evidence that Margaret was an illegitimate daughter of Llywelyn,
Prince of North Wales. I've studied the archives on the issue of
Margaret of Wales' parentage and have found some disturbing
irregularities.

By the way, I wish to thank Brian Timms and Doug Thompson for
displaying the Tyeys and Brewes heraldry on their websites. The coats
of arms on their websites are wonderful. Great job, guys!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

the...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 1:14:21 PM12/12/04
to
Sunday, 12 December, 2004


Dear Doug,

Much appreciated.

The evidence for the marriage of John de Braose and Margaret
ferch Llywelyn is found in Brut y Tywysogion for the year 1219, as
follows:

' 1219 In this year Rhys Gryg took the daughter of the earl of Clare
for his wedded wife and John de Breos took Margaret, daughter of the
Lord Llywelyn, for his wedded wife. ' [1]

Any contradictory information concerning this marriage, or the
question of Margaret ferch Llywelyn's illegitimacy, would be of the
greatest interest.

Cheers, and thanks again for a fantastic find!

John

NOTES
[1] Hanes Cymru website provides an excellent translation :
www.webexcel.ndirect.co.uk/gwarnant/hanes/chronicle

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 2:12:15 PM12/12/04
to
Dear John ~

Thank you for the prompt reply.

Yes, I know that Margaret , wife of John de Brewes, was the daughter of
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales. My question is: What
evidence do you have that she was illegitimate?
Best always, Douglas Richardson

the...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 3:32:22 PM12/12/04
to
Sunday, 12 December, 2004


Dear Doug,

The problem on my end, at least, is I have no evidence one way
or the other.

My tendency, given that John de Braose's uncle Reginald was
married (as his 2nd marriage) to Gwladys Ddu, sister/half-sister to
Margaret in 1215, would be to take Margaret as being younger than
Gwladys. As I believe it reasonable [old, long story there] to place
Gwladys Ddu as a daughter of Llywelyn by his wife Joan of England, this
would make it reasonable (not proven) for Margaret, a younger sister of
Gwladys, to have also been a child of Joan.

As to chronology and other facts re: Margaret and her children,
her eldest son Sir William de Braose was evidently born before 15 July
1224 (he was 'of age', i.e. presumed to be 21 or over, on 15 July
1245). Margaret must have been born say 1209 or before.

Given that we know Gwladys Ddu did not have her first child (by
her 2nd husband Ralph de Mortimer) until say 1231 (that being Roger de
Mortimer), it seems possible that Margaret was in fact older than
Gwladys. If this is the case, given the few births which Joan likely
had between say 1206-1210 (I am counting Gwladys Ddu and Dafydd ap
Llywelyn here), placing Margaret in this early mix seems possibly but
certainly crowds the field........

My tu'pence, anyway.
Cheers,

John

doug.t...@virgin.net

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 7:16:57 PM12/12/04
to
Douglas

Another good piece of work. Thanks!

A couple of points:

"Agnes (de Clifford)" - I still haven't seen any evidence that Peter's
wife is a Clifford.

"Peter de Brewes had a third son who has living descendants" - Do you
mean Peter of Wiston? Have you accepted him as a son of Peter of
Tetbury? I'm still looking for evidence.

Regards

Doug Thompson

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 2:24:45 AM12/13/04
to
Dear John ~

Thank you again for a prompt answer. Again, much appreciated. You're
a gentleman and a scholar.

In your current post, you state that Sir William de Brewes was
"evidently born before 15 July 1224 (he was 'of age', i.e., presumed to
be 21 or over, on 15 July 1245)." If I may ask, what is your source
for this statement?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

www.royalancestry.net

Rose

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 5:28:08 AM12/13/04
to
Douglas,

I have seen it many times written that she was Margaret Tiptoft albeit
with now proven evidence. Has Margaret Tiptoft now been discounted?
Rose

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 5:54:17 AM12/13/04
to
Dear Rose ~

Yes, it appears Tiptoft is now out. Makes you wonder how such errors
ever crept into print.

The one error that has really gotten circulation is Fair Rosamond
Clifford as the mother of William Longespee. Does anyone know if the
new DNB has got William Longespee's mother correctly identified? I'd
be interested in knowing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

I.E_Johansson

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 5:52:55 AM12/13/04
to

"Rose" <mayt...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1102933688.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Is it this Margaret Tiptoft we are discussing?
http://209.190.235.73/genes/db/browse.cfm/ID/7750

"Margaret TIPTOFT was born about 1307. She has Ancestral File number
15C2-G92.
She was married to Thomas DE MONTHERMER before 1329. Children were: Margaret
DE MONTHERMER."
http://www.reimert.org/genealogy/database/d266.htm

and if so is the two Margaret mentioned in following text one and the same?:
Thomas Baron de Monthermer [Parents] was born on 4 Oct 1301. He died in
1340. He married Margaret Tipoft. He had other parents. Thomas was born in
Lord.

Other marriages:

de Tiptoft, Margaret Teyes
Tiptoft, Margaret "
end of quote from:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~elessar5/pafg1258.htm

Inger E

>


Mayt...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 7:19:01 AM12/13/04
to
Inger,

Yes, it appears to be.

Rose

Don Aitken

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 7:53:02 AM12/13/04
to

Stirnet, at
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/pp/plantagenet2.htm gives
Thomas's Wife as "Margaret (d 05.1349, probably widow of Henry, Lord
Theyes)", and does not suggest that there were two Margarets. It seems
that her identity is uncertain.

I have tried to check what that site has under Tiptoft, but the server
seems to have hiccups at the moment.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Mayt...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 9:49:08 AM12/13/04
to
Just to confirm any confusion - I note I had a mistype in my original message
and I should have said 'with no proven evidence'. Sincere apologies.

Rose

the...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 10:51:20 AM12/13/04
to
Monday, 13 December, 2004


Good morning Doug,

My basis for that statement is part of a post by Paul Reed on 3
October 1999, in an SGM thread entitled <Llywelyn's daughter Margaret
and the de Braose Family>, to-wit:

" Margred had three sons by John de Braose:
i. William de Braose, who succeeded as lord of Bramber, of full age 15
July
1245 [thus born by 1224]. He is held to have become 1st Lord
Breuse/Brewes/Brewose. Though he was allowed to succeed his father in
1232,
before 18 July, he is not stated to have been of full age in the Fine
Rolls
until 15 July 1245. "

For William de Braose to have been born say 1223-1224 makes sense,
with the evidence in Brut y Tywysogion for his parents having been
married in 1219. As Paul indicates, William was allowed to succeed his
father at the grand old age of say 8 or 9 (in 1232). This appears
unusual, but perhaps not so unusual for a grandson of the Prince of
Aberffraw (or of Wales/North Wales, as you prefer).

Cheers,

John

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 1:27:14 PM12/13/04
to
Dear Inger ~

Thank you for your good post.

Yes, this is one and the same person.

Margaret, wife successively of Henry le Tyeys and Thomas de
Monthermer, has apparently on rare occasions been called a Tiptoft in
printed secondary sources. There is no evidence to my knowledge that
she was a Tiptoft. Rather, the evidence indicates that she was a
Brewes.

This highlights the importance of relying on primary records when
available, and not to depend too heavily on printed secondary sources
or online databases, as helpful as they may be. I personally like the
Ancestral File which you mentioned, but, where possible, I verify
everything I find in it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Paul Mackenzie

unread,
Dec 13, 2004, 9:03:54 PM12/13/04
to

>
>
Note: In my original post above, I stated that the issue of Peter de
> Brewes ultimately failed. Actually, it appears that only the issue of
> his eldest two sons failed. Further research indicates that Peter de
> Brewes had a third son who has living descendants.
>
> Best Always Doug Richardson

Hi Doug and all:

I have recently been conducting some research
on this question and recently found some interesting
references concerning the failure of the issue of Peter
de Brewes of Tetbury. Whether these references are
conclusive remains to be seen.

The ultimate heir of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury
two sons Thomas d1361 and John de Brewes
d1338 was Thomas Greville alias Thomas Cokesey.
The said Thomas Greville died 1498 s.p and
whose heirs were found to be Thomas earl of
Surrey and Maurice Berkerley, brother and heir
of William late marquis of Berkerly kinsman and
heirs of George Brewes[1].

The reference [1] states that said Thomas Greville
was son of John Grevill alis Cokesey, son of Joyce
and sister of Hugh Cokesey, who in turn was the
son of Walter Cokesey, son of Isabel, daugther of
Agnes, sister of George de Brewes, and that George
was kinsman of Thomas earl of Surrey and Maurice
Berkeley.

Further references indicate that George de Brewes
was the son of John, brother of Thomas de Brewes
d1361, father of Thomas de Brewes 1395[2][3][4]. A
CIPM shows that said Thomas de Brewes d1361
was the son of Peter de Brewes d1312 of Tetbury.
Other primary references prove that said John de
Brewes was also the son of Peter de Brewes d1312.
It should be noted that the properties of the two
brothers Thomas and John ultimately ended up in
the hands of Hugh Cokesey and Thomas Cokesey.

The said heirship of Thomas earl of Surrey and Maurice
Berkeley came through Aliva, daugther and one of the
the co-heirs of William de Brewes, the elder half brother
of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury. [5] Aliva married
John Mowbray and the heirship passed through her
great-great-great grand daugthers Margaret and Isabella
Mowbray. The said Margaret Mowbray married Robert
Howard, and had a son John Howard who was the father
of said Thomas earl of Surrey. The said Isabella Mowbray
married James Berkeley who was the father of said Maurice
Berkeley. [5][6]. The lands of Thomas de Grevill were
partitioned between Thomas earl of Surrey and said
Maurice Berkeley.

Prima facia, one may conclude from reference [1]
that there were no living issue of Peter de Brewes of
Tetbury in 1498, and that Peter de Brewes of Wiston
and Margaret de Monthermer were not children of
Peter de Brewes of Tetbury.

However, Dugdale comments on reference [1] that
"no notice is taken of the issue of Joan the other daugther
and coheir of William de Brewes and wife of James de
Bohun of Midhurst, who were well certainly entitled to the
inheritance; and this seems the more extraordinary,
as one of the heirs of that line was married to Sir
David Owen, Knt, a natural son of Sir Owen Tudor,
father of the monach then upon the throne". As this
appears to be the case, then some doubt must arise as
to reference [1].

Other people's comments on how much weight
should be put on this reference [1] would be
appreciated.


[1] 1499 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 166
[2] 1445 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 391
[3] 1409 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 79
[4] 1408 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 30-31
[5] Additions to Dugdale's page 74
[6] Complete peerage

Doug Thompson

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 2:23:48 PM12/14/04
to
Paul Mackenzie at paul.ma...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> The ultimate heir of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury
> two sons Thomas d1361 and John de Brewes
> d1338 was Thomas Greville alias Thomas Cokesey.
> The said Thomas Greville died 1498 s.p and
> whose heirs were found to be Thomas earl of
> Surrey and Maurice Berkerley, brother and heir
> of William late marquis of Berkerly kinsman and
> heirs of George Brewes[1].
>

> [1] 1499 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 166
>

> how much weight
> should be put on this reference [1]?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul

Paul

My understanding is that this was a "special livery". I believe that
indicates that Thomas and Maurice were not known to be the right heirs, but
a grant of special livery by patent letters prevented a later dispute by an
alternative heir.

If I am right, this means that the descent of the Braose estates to them
sheds no light on the existence or not of descendants of Peter of Tetbury,
leaving the way open for Margaret de Monthermer and Peter of Wiston to be
his children. The existence of known Bohun descendants of Joan at the time
of the livery adds weight to this view. The livery should be seen as a grant
rather than an inheritance I think.

Doug

Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 2:28:34 PM12/14/04
to
To anyone responding to this thread - please trim extraneous newsgroups.

Paul Mackenzie

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 7:33:31 PM12/14/04
to
"Doug Thompson" <doug.t...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:BDE4EE44.52FF8%doug.t...@virgin.net...

Hi Doug:

Reference [1] states:

" July 18, Westminster. Licence of entry for Thomas earl of Surrey and
Maurice Berkeley, brother and heir of William late marquis of Berkeley,
kinsman and heirs of George Brews, brother of Agnes mother of Isabel
late wife of Walter Cokesey, knight, into the lands of the aforesaid George
, Agnes and Isabel, deceased, or of Thomas Greville, alias Thomas Cokesey,
knight, John Greville his father, Joyce mother of said John, Hugh brother of
said Joyce, Walter father of said Hugh, and of the aforesaid Walter Cokesey,
knight, and Isabel, the father and mother of said Walter the father of Hugh.
by p.s."


[1] 1499 Calendar of Patent Rolls page 166

Page 74 of "Additions to Dugdale's Baronage" states:

"Thomas Earl of Surrey and Sir Maurice Berkeley (brother and heir of
William late Marquis Berkeley) were cousins and heirs of George Brewes
, the brother of Agnes, mother of Isabel sometime wife of Sir Walter
Cokesey. They had special livery of all manors, lordships, lands,
tenements, rents, reversions, knights' fees, advowsons, patronage
of Abbies, Priories, &c, &c, which "feurunt pdci Georij Brews aut psate
Agnetis seu presate Isabella et q post mortem of said George, Agnes,
and Isabel, or of Thomas Grevill ats Cokesey, Knt., John Greville father
of said Thomas, Joice mother of said John, Hugh brother of said Joice,
Walter father of said Hugh and of said Walter cokesey knt, and Isabel,
father and mother of said Walter, father of Hugh, or of any of them,
had come into the kings hands (Pat. of special livery 18 July 14 Hen
V11, p2. m.4)."


What you say seems highly probable. It would be nice to tie this
down one way or the other as it is extremely important regarding
the line of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury/Peter de Brewes of Wiston/
Margaret de Monthermer.

Many Thanks

Doug.

P.S. Also, I noted from a search of PROCAT there is a Inq.PostMortem on
Thomas Cokesey and a further document regarding the partition
of these properties. I have not seen these documents.


Paul Mackenzie

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 8:19:33 PM12/14/04
to

<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103058810.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Paul ~
>
> Thank you for taking the time to share your findings with the
> newsgroup. Much apprecated.
>
> Under normal circumstances, when Thomas Greville died, his estates
> should have escheated to the crown, he having no near next of kin.
> Instead, the crown awarded his lands to the Howard and Berkeley
> descendants of a distant cousin of the half-blood, Aline de Brewes,
> wife of John de Mowbray. And, as you have pointed out, the heirs of
> Aline de Brewes' sister, Joan, were excluded in this settlement. In
> addition to the heirs of Joan de Brewes being excluded, two other sets
> of closer relatives of the FULL blood were excluded, namely the Shirley
> descendants of Peter de Brewes the younger (died c. 1377), and the
> Neville-Montagu descendants of Margaret de Monthermer (died 1349).
> Basically, this confirms Dugdale's suspicion that something was afoul
> in the settlement of Thomas Greville's estates in 1498.
>
> Given these facts, I believe that the statement made in 1498 that Peter
> de Brewes the elder (died 1312) had no living heirs was erroneous. If
> so, this represents a rather unique case, in which the crown does not
> seem to have been really interested in determining the rightful heir(s)
> of Thomas Greville. But since the properties should normally have
> escheated to the crown due to the lack of near heirs, perhaps
> determining the rightful distant heir(s) in this case was an
> unnecessary formality.
>
> Another possibility exists that the Shirley descendants of Peter de
> Brewes the younger may not have been aware that they were the closest
> kin to Thomas Greville. A garbled account of the Brewes family is
> found in fact in the Shirley pedigree recorded in the published Sussex
> visitation. This pedigree identifies Peter de Brewes (presumably
> senior is intended) as the son of "Jey" de Brewes and his wife, a
> daughter of Lord Roos:
>
> "Peter Brewes the son of Jey ... King Edw. the 3 by his charter gave
> [him] the manor [of] Westneston in Sussex & Wedonhull in com'
> Buckingham = ... d. of the Lord Ros" [Reference: Benolte et al. Vis. of
> Sussex 1530 & 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 4-7].
>
> Peter de Brewes was actually a younger son of William de Brewes (died
> 1291), of Bramber, Sussex, by his 3rd wife, Mary Roos. If the Shirley
> family was confused about their Brewes ancestry, it may well explain
> why they failed to step foward in 1498 and claim the Greville estates.
> Simply put, a lot of forgetting can happen over the span of 200 years.
>
>
> Having said that, all newsgroup members who are Shirley descendants may
> now step forward and claim the Greville estates as the rightful heirs.
> This is your lucky day.

>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>

Hi Doug:

Many thanks for your well thought out conclusions. I knew
it was my lucky day.

From both your and Doug Thompson's comments, it does seem
that this reference[1499 Calendar of Patent Rolls] has little relevance
in determining who were or were not the parents of Peter de Brewes
of Wiston/ Margaret Monthermer.

Kind Regards and Season Greetings


Paul K Davis

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 10:55:31 PM12/14/04
to
This also removes one of the objections to my claim that Alice, wife of
Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]


> [Original Message]
> From: Doug Thompson <doug.t...@virgin.net>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Date: 12/14/2004 11:27:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Identity of Margaret, wife of Henry le Tyeys & Thomas
deMonthermer

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 6:57:49 PM12/14/04
to
Dear Paul ~

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Nichol...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 1:40:23 PM12/14/04
to

The fashion in this time period was to name the eldest daughter after
her paternal grandmother; in this case, Llywelyn's mother Marared verch
Madog. This would seem to suggest that Marared verch Llywelyn was the
eldest of his daughters, but by who? The eldest daughter of Tangwystl?
The eldest daughter from his Isles princess? The eldest of Joan's
daughters? Or the eldest daughter from some unknown concubine or wife?

Llywelyn's three known children by Joan were Davydd (named for a Welsh
saint), Elen (probably named in honor of her great-grandmother, Eleanor
of Aquitaine), and Susanna (Llywelyn's grandmother). Gwladys, Gryffudd,
and Angharad were all also family names. I know of no origin for
Tegwared and Gwenllian's names.

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 6:47:03 PM12/14/04
to
Dear Paul ~

visitation. The pedigree identifies Peter de Brewes (presumably senior
is intended) as the son of "Jey" [John] de Brewes and indicates Peter's
wife was a daughter of Lord Roos:

"Peter Brewes the son of Jey ... King Edw. the 3 by his charter gave
[him] the manor [of] Westneston in Sussex & Wedonhull in com'
Buckingham = ... d. of the Lord Ros" [Reference: Benolte et al. Vis. of
Sussex 1530 & 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 4-7].

Peter de Brewes was actually a younger son of William de Brewes (died
1291), of Bramber, Sussex, by his 3rd wife, Mary Roos. If the Shirley
family was confused about their Brewes ancestry, it may well explain
why they failed to step foward in 1498 and claim the Greville estates.
Simply put, a lot of forgetting can happen over the span of 200 years.


Having said that, all newsgroup members who are Shirley descendants may
now step forward and claim the Greville estates as the rightful heirs.
This is your lucky day.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2004, 6:54:49 PM12/14/04
to
Dear Paul ~

visitation. This pedigree identifies Peter de Brewes (presumably
senior is intended) as the son of "Jey" de Brewes and his wife, a
daughter of Lord Roos:

"Peter Brewes the son of Jey ... King Edw. the 3 by his charter gave
[him] the manor [of] Westneston in Sussex & Wedonhull in com'
Buckingham = ... d. of the Lord Ros" [Reference: Benolte et al. Vis. of
Sussex 1530 & 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 4-7].

Peter de Brewes was actually a younger son of William de Brewes (died
1291), of Bramber, Sussex, by his 3rd wife, Mary Roos. If the Shirley
family was confused about their Brewes ancestry, it may well explain
why they failed to step foward in 1498 and claim the Greville estates.
Simply put, a lot of forgetting can happen over the span of 200 years.


Having said that, all newsgroup members who are Shirley descendants may
now step forward and claim the Greville estates as the rightful heirs.
This is your lucky day.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 6:24:36 PM12/15/04
to
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> The one error that has really gotten circulation is Fair Rosamond
> Clifford as the mother of William Longespee. Does anyone know if
the
> new DNB has got William Longespee's mother correctly identified? I'd
> be interested in knowing.

The new DNB states that his mother is unknown, but rules out both
Rosamund and "Ykenai or Hikenai". It doesn't even state her Christian
name, which has been known for a couple of decades.

If I remember correctly, Ray Phair was writing up the identification of
his mother for publication. Does anyone know whether the paper has
appeared yet? As the DNB people say they welcome corrections, it would
be good to put them straight on this.

Chris Phillips

R. Battle

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 8:02:39 PM12/15/04
to c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk wrote:
<snip>

> If I remember correctly, Ray Phair was writing up the identification of
> his (William Longespee's) mother for publication. Does anyone know
> whether the paper has appeared yet? As the DNB people say they welcome
> corrections, it would be good to put them straight on this.
<snip>

Ray Phair's article appeared in the October 2002 edition of "The American
Genealogist" (TAG), 77:279-281. Also worth mentioning is the article by
Paul Reed on the subject of Ida's identity in the April TAG of that year
(77:137-149).

-Robert Battle

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 7:54:56 AM12/16/04
to
In message of 15 Dec, c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk wrote:

> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > The one error that has really gotten circulation is Fair Rosamond
> > Clifford as the mother of William Longespee.

In 1887, the DNB published this as part of its article on Rosamund
Clifford:

"Rosamond is commonly reported to have had two sons by Henry II, viz.
Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and William Longsword, earl of Salisbury.
This statement does not seem to reach further back than the end of the
sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth century. Apparently it is
unknown to any English chronicler or historian before the publication
of Speed's ‘History of Great Britain' in 1611. It has since been
accepted by both Carte and Eyton. That Geoffrey and William cannot both
have been sons of Fair Rosamond is plain from the fact that the former
was born in 1151-2 (Gir. Cambr. iv. 384), whereas Rosamond is spoken of
as a ‘girl’ (puellam) more than twenty years later (Gir. Cambr. De
Instit. Princ. p. 91). We also know from Walter Map that Geoffrey's
mother was called Ykenai or Hikenai (De Nug. Curial. pp. 228, 235); and
it is worth notice that, according to Dr. Stubbs, William Longsword
laid claim to the inheritance of a Sir Roger de Akeny, a name which
bears a close resemblance to Walter Map's Ykenai (Gir. Cambr., ed.
Dimock, vii. p. xxxvii). There is moreover no positive evidence in
favour of William Longsword's being the son of Rosamond. In 1607, when
Margaret, wife of George Clifford, third earl of Cumberland [q.v.],
claimed the Clifford estates for her daughter Anne, and instituted
proceedings against her brother-in-law Francis, another claimant, the
Clifford genealogy was investigated, and the theory that William
Longsword was the son of Rosamond Clifford was adopted. It is true that
William Longsword first appears in history in 1196, when a son of Henry
by Rosamond would come of age. The manor of Appleby in Lincolnshire was
granted to one William Longsword (who proves to be the brother, and not
the son, of Henry II) before 1200; the manor of Appleby in Westmoreland
belonged to the Cliffords of the fourteenth century. A confusion
between these two properties may well have led the suitors of 1607 to
associate Longsword with the Clifford genealogy, and to support the
former's suggested parentage."

This makes it clear that as long ago as 1887 it was quite clear that
Rosamund was not the mother of Wm Longspee. So how could that idea have
"really gotten circulation"?

> > Does anyone know if the new DNB has got William Longespee's mother
> > correctly identified? I'd be interested in knowing.
>
> The new DNB states that his mother is unknown, but rules out both
> Rosamund and "Ykenai or Hikenai". It doesn't even state her Christian
> name, which has been known for a couple of decades.
>
> If I remember correctly, Ray Phair was writing up the identification of
> his mother for publication. Does anyone know whether the paper has
> appeared yet? As the DNB people say they welcome corrections, it would
> be good to put them straight on this.
>
> Chris Phillips

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Message has been deleted

Doug Thompson

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 3:41:37 PM12/16/04
to
(mainly to Paul Mackenzie)

Isn't this just the one we were waiting for?

Henry Tyeys, guardian of the children of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury,
facilitates the marriage of Peter de Brewes of Wiston to the daughter
of one of his tenants.
Coincidences can only explain so much......

Doug Thompson

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages