How a girl got married!
paul bulkley
is as follows:
It was agreed betweene Thomas Wilbram and Thomas of
Swettenham that Thomas sone and heire of the said
Thomas Wilbram shall wed Margaret the daughter of the
said Thomas Swettenham and heire to Alison his wyfe to
the said Thomas of Swettenham, and if Thomas of the
said Thomas of Wilbram dee, that then the said
Margaret shall wed Rondle brother of the said Thomas,
the sone and heire of the said Thomas Wilbram. And
that all the landes of the said Thomas Wilbraham and
Margaret his wyfe shall be conveyed to the said Thomas
the sone and the said Margaret etc and all the landes
that William Boydel and Margerie his wyfe moder to the
said Thomas of Wilbram (hold); and the said Thomas of
Swettenham covenants to grant the reversion of all the
lands and tenements that Janet his moder holdes for
lyfe etc, and a feoffment to be made to preestes of
both there landes at the request of William Bulkley of
Eaton.
date September 1 1433-Aug 31 1434.
Who married who I do not know.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
Betty Owen
but I am not sure.
Lets see what the rest have to say
Betty
Betty Owen
dies before they marry than she is automatically betrothed to the second
man... I think...
just my oponion.
this is a good one Paul
Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul bulkley" <designe...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: How a girl got married!
Chris Phillips
> An interesting agreement in the Middlewich Chartulary
> is as follows:
>
> It was agreed betweene Thomas Wilbram and Thomas of
> Swettenham that Thomas sone and heire of the said
> Thomas Wilbram shall wed Margaret the daughter of the
> said Thomas Swettenham and heire to Alison his wyfe to
> the said Thomas of Swettenham, and if Thomas of the
> said Thomas of Wilbram dee, that then the said
> Margaret shall wed Rondle brother of the said Thomas,
> the sone and heire of the said Thomas Wilbram. And
> that all the landes of the said Thomas Wilbraham and
> Margaret his wyfe shall be conveyed to the said Thomas
> the sone and the said Margaret etc and all the landes
> that William Boydel and Margerie his wyfe moder to the
> said Thomas of Wilbram (hold); and the said Thomas of
> Swettenham covenants to grant the reversion of all the
> lands and tenements that Janet his moder holdes for
> lyfe etc, and a feoffment to be made to preestes of
> both there landes at the request of William Bulkley of
> Eaton.
> date September 1 1433-Aug 31 1434.
>
> Who married who I do not know.
Thanks for posting that interesting text, which only goes to show how much
genealogical information could be including in a single transaction!
I read it that Margaret is contracted to marry the younger Thomas Wilbram,
with his brother Rondle being held in reserve in case Thomas died ("an heir
and a spare"?). As Margaret was her mother's heir (though not her
father's?), maybe an inheritance could be traced which would show what the
outcome was.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
> An interesting agreement in the Middlewich Chartulary
> is as follows:
>
> Swettenham [2] that Thomas (5a) sone and heire of the said
> Thomas Wilbram (3) shall wed Margaret [4] the daughter of the
> said Thomas Swettenham [2] and heire to Alison his wyfe [3] to
> the said Thomas of Swettenham [2], and if Thomas (5a) of the
> said Thomas of Wilbram (3) dee, that then the said
> Margaret [4] shall wed Rondle (5b) brother of the said Thomas (5a),
> the sone and heire of the said Thomas Wilbram (3). And
> that all the landes of the said Thomas Wilbraham (3) and
> Margaret his wyfe (4) shall be conveyed to the said Thomas (5a)
> the sone and the said Margaret [4] etc and all the landes
> that William Boydel (2) and Margerie his wyfe (1) moder to the
> said Thomas of Wilbram (3) (hold); and the said Thomas of
> Swettenham [2] covenants to grant the reversion of all the
> lands and tenements that Janet his moder [1] holdes for
> lyfe etc, and a feoffment to be made to preestes of
> both there landes at the request of William Bulkley of
> Eaton.
> date September 1 1433-Aug 31 1434.
>
> Who married who I do not know.
This is a conventional agreement - a way to make the text plainer is to
assign a number to each person, as interpolated above with different
parentheses for the groom's (5a) and bride's [4] families, and then plot
the relationships stepping down the generations in order, as follows:
(groom's family)
N Wilbram married Marjerie N (1), later wife of William Boydel (2)
Thomas Wilbram (3) married Margaret N (4)
Thomas Wilbram (5a) contracted to Margaret Swettenham [4]
Rondle Wilbram (5b) reserve in case his brother dies
[bride's family]
N Swettenham married Janet N [1]
Thomas Swettenham [2] married Alison N [3]
Margaret Swettenham [4] contracted to Thomas Wilbram (5a) with
Rondle Wilbram (5b) in reserve
The point raised by Chris Phillips is not made clear - "Margaret the
daughter of the said Thomas Swettenham and heire to Alison his wyfe to
the said Thomas of Swettenham" could mean either that Margaret's
(presumed) mother Alison was not his first wife, and his own heir was a
son from a previous marriage (in which case the name of Thomas is
clumsily repeated) or else should be read with the addition of "and"
after "Alison his wyfe", meaning that Margaret was heir both to Alison
_and_ to Thomas himself.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
> The point raised by Chris Phillips is not made clear - "Margaret the
> daughter of the said Thomas Swettenham and heire to Alison his wyfe to
> the said Thomas of Swettenham" could mean either that Margaret's
> (presumed) mother Alison was not his first wife, and his own heir was a
> son from a previous marriage (in which case the name of Thomas is
> clumsily repeated) or else should be read with the addition of "and"
> after "Alison his wyfe", meaning that Margaret was heir both to Alison
> _and_ to Thomas himself.
On reflection, I think this is right - it looks as though a word may have
dropped out of this description, though I'm not sure why it wouldn't have
been phrased "Margaret the daughter and heir of the said Thomas Swettenham
and of Alison his wife".
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
It does seem an odd phrasing, either way. Maybe Swettenham's estate was
considerably the less valuable, and not as much an inducement to the
contract as his wife Alison's - although that seems rather a crude
reason for reversing the normal order of mention, and there's nothing
here implying a distinction of rank between the couple.
But the document is poorly drafted, and perhaps wasn't carefully enough
thought out to be worth speculating over in detail.
Peter Stewart
Betty Owen
gets the bride unless he dies then brother no. 2 gets the goods.
Is this suppose to be a bethrol? if so I cant say I have ever seen one with
2 men before...
Thanks for sharing.
Betty
----- Original Message -----
Sharp, Ann
Groom: Thomas Wilbram, Jr., "the heir."
Bride: Margaret Swettenham
Parents of groom: Thomas Wilbraham and Margaret his wyfe
Brother of Groom: Rondle Wilbram, "the spare."
Parents of bride: Thomas Swettenham and presumably Alison (Just says that Margaret is Alison's heir; it is possible that Alison is not living so that Margaret has already inherited from her, or that Alison is not the only wife so that Margaret will inherit from her on a different scale from any half-siblings.).
Paternal Grandmother of groom: Margerie, presently married to William Boydel.
Paternal Grandmother of bride: Janet, probably a widow, since she's holding property for life and no husband is mentioned.
date September 1 1433-Aug 31 1434.
One hopes that SOME provision is planned for Rondle Wilbraham, if all the lands of Thomas and Margaret Wilbraham and those of Thomas' mother go to Thomas Jr. - perhaps Margaret Wilbraham, the groom's mother, had property and those lands were intended for the younger son. The bride's father is committing his mother's dower to his daughter's dowry - presumably about a third of the estate?
L.P.H.,
Ann
ax...@pge.com
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
An interesting agreement in the Middlewich Chartulary is as follows:
It was agreed betweene Thomas Wilbram and Thomas of Swettenham that Thomas sone and heire of the said Thomas Wilbram shall wed Margaret the daughter of the said Thomas Swettenham and heire to Alison his wyfe to the said Thomas of Swettenham, and if Thomas of the said Thomas of Wilbram dee, that then the said Margaret shall wed Rondle brother of the said Thomas, the sone and heire of the said Thomas Wilbram. And that all the landes of the said Thomas Wilbraham and Margaret his wyfe shall be conveyed to the said Thomas the sone and the said Margaret etc and all the landes that William Boydel and Margerie his wyfe moder to the said Thomas of Wilbram (hold); and the said Thomas of Swettenham covenants to grant the reversion of all the lands and tenements that Janet his moder holdes for lyfe etc, and a feoffment to be made to preestes of both there landes at the request of William Bulkley of Eaton.
date September 1 1433-Aug 31 1434.
Who married who I do not know.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
Rosie Bevan
appear in the Wilbrahim of Woodhey pedigree found in Ormerod v.3 p.379, so a
marriage did take place following the contract.
According to Ormerod, Thomas Wilbrahim was the eldest son of Thomas
Wilbrahim, lord of Radnor (d.1470), and Margaret, daughter and heiress of
John de Golburne of Woodhey. Thomas (Jr) married Margaret, daughter of
Thomas Swetenham, by his wife Alice, daughter of Robert and sister and
heiress of Roger de Overton, and the couple had two sons and five daughters.
Thomas died in 1492 and Margaret is said to have died in 1523, but this
seems unlikely given the date of the contract (1433/34). Margery is
presumably paternal grandmother of Thomas Jnr, and William Boydel her
subsequent husband.
Ranulph (Rondle) didn't miss out, but was married to an unidentified Alice
and they were the ancestors of the Wilbrahims of Nantwich, Lathom, Rode and
Dorfold.
The contract is not untypical of the time. Usually the prospective partners
were children and the contract and marriage were arranged by the parents.
Such marriages represented alliances of families and property, rather than
romantic unions. As Chris has already indicated, the clause regarding the
brothers means that if Thomas died before the marriage took place, then
Randle would take the place of his elder brother. Peter's point that Alice
may have had greater property interests than her husband seems to hold true
in this case.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul bulkley" <designe...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Peter's point that Alice may have had greater property interests than
> her husband seems to hold true in this case.
Paul's correction neatly accounts for the phrase - the contract calls
Margaret "heire to Alison last wyfe to the said Thomas of Swettenham"
because Alice de Overton was evidently dead at the time whereas Thomas
himself might yet have sons by another wife, who would oust Margaret as
_his_ heir. I wonder if this actually happened.
As Rosie says, it's a pretty ordinary contract. Many a marriage
forespoken like this didn't eventuate, perhaps in a higher proportion
for upper ranks of the nobility, where politics could intervene as
effectively as death or ruin - not least in the 14th century.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Sorry - I meant 15th century. The 14th century in England, of course,
wasn't exactly bereft of politics, but not often with equal impact on
family alliances.
Peter Stewart