Peter de Braose perplex
Paul Davis
Various recent sources say that the Peter de Braose
(variously spelled) whose daughter Beatrice (or Beatrix) married
Sir Hugh Shirley, was the son of William de Braose and Eleanor
de Bavant (variously spelled).
However, F. N. Craig, in a well researched article ("Whose
Son Was Peter de Braose?", NEHGR: w n 599, v 150, 1996 July;
which I consulted at the Sutro Library, call # F1N56),
demolishes this, concluding as follows - "Peter (II) did not
inherit Wiston from William (III), and there is no evidence that
either Sir Roger [de Bavent] or his father had a daughter
Eleanor."; and "The descent of Peter (II) from William (III)
cannot be accepted."; and "There is no evidence that William
(III) had a wife or a son." The item in brackets was supplied
by myself for clarity, and the numbers in parenthesis are
Craig's numbering system to keep distinct the people discussed.
Peter II means the one whose daughter married Hugh Shirley, and
William III means the one who was a younger son of William de
Braose [-1291/1] and Mary de Ros [-1326].
Craig endorses, without claiming to have proved, the claim
that Peter (II) was a son of Peter (I), who is a well
established son of William (I) and Mary de Ros. Peter (I) died
in 1311/2. His wife was Agnes, recently identified in
correspondence here at Gen-Medieval.
Curiously, in my reading on this subject, I have not found
reference to the Visitations of Sussex, where important lands of
this family were located. I have consulted the "Shirley"
pedigree (pages 4 - 7) in "The Visitations of the County of
Sussex, Made and taken in the years 1530 by Thomas Benolte,
Clarenceux King of Arms; and 1633-4 by John Philipot, Somerset
Herald, and George Owen, York Herald, for Sir John Burroughs,
Garter, and Sir Richard St.George, Clarenceux", edited by W.
Bruce Bannerman, published as volume 53 of the Harleian
Society's publications, London, 1905 (consulted at the Stanford
University Library, call # CS410H3). It shows a line of descent
for Peter (II) which, though I see probable errors concerning
some of the wives/mothers, seems plausible in regard to the male
line. This pedigree is as follows [presented in reverse order
and with my comments in brackets]:
"Sr Hugh Shirley Knight" = Beatrix d. & sole heire to Sr John
Brewes, Knight [apparently it should be "sister" rather than
"daughter"].
Adjacent to them are:
"Sir Jey Brewes Knight of Westneston in Sussex Knight dyed
without yssue." = "Margaret d. of Sr Thomas Poynings Lord St
John of Basinge." [It would appear from the previous reference
that "Jey" means "John". Other sources indicate John had more
wives than this one.]
Beatrix and Jey are shown by lines to be children of:
"Peter Brewes the son of Jey. To this Peter Brewes the son
of Jey Brewes King Edw. the 3 by his chartr gave the manor
Westneston in Sussex & Wedonhull in com' Bokingham." = ".... d.
of the Lord Ros". [Craig, in a previous article "Maternal
Ancestry of Governor Thomas Dudley: Purefoy, Ayot, and Denton
Lines", NEHGR, w n 567, v 142, 1988 July, consulted at Stanford,
call # F1N56, shows that Peter's wife was Joan Percy, and he
presents her as mother of Beatrix and John, but it is not clear
to me that the possibility of Peter having had two wives is
excluded.]. He is shown by a line to be son of:
"Jey Brewes son & heire of Gyles, 20 Ed. 2.". He is shown by
a line to be son of:
"Gyles Brewes". He is shown by a line to be son of:
"Sr Gyles Bruese of Buckingh'sh." = "Beatrix d. & heire of Sr
John St Helene of Crowell in com. Oxford". Adjacent to them
are:
"John Lord Breuse of Brember, Gower & Knapp, 1 husband." =
"Margaret, Lady of Cautreselif." = "Walter Lord Clyfford, 2
husband". [This Margaret is in fact daughter of Prince Llywelyn
the Great of Wales.]
John and Gyles are both shown by lines to be sons of:
"William Bruse, Lord of Brember to whome King John gave the
land of Gower" = ".... d. of ye Prince of Walles". [He is not
in fact believed to have married any woman who was daughter of
any prince of Wales. This is evidently a misplaced description
of Margaret, his daughter-in-law.]
Carl Boyer 3rd, in "Medieval English Ancestors of Certain
Americans", 2001 (consulted at the Santa Clara City Library,
call # GR-929.72B79) shows "William, murdered 1210 ... had sons
John (... m. Margaret ferch Prince Llywelyn), Giles and Philip"
so there may be some confirmation of the existence of the Gyles
above [married Beatrix St.Helene].
It seems to me that this pedigree of Peter (II) should be
considered better evidenced than the other hypotheses I have
seen, though it certainly wants confirmation. What do others
think?
(I thank <minnma...@aol.com>, Paul Mackenzie, and Doug
Thompson, who have been corresponding on this subject.)
- PKD [Paul K Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
Douglas Richardson
I believe that F.N. Craig's identification of Beatrice (Brewes)
Shirley's father, Peter de Brewes, as a younger son of Peter I de
Breuse, by his wife, Agnes de Clifford, is probably in error. The
records show that Peter I de Breuse's line eventually failed and his
lands passed to the descendants of his older half-brother, William de
Breuse. Had Beatrice (Brewes) Shirley been a descendant of Peter I de
Breuse, then her descendants, not her distant cousins, would have
inherited the lands of Peter I de Breuse.
Having said that, it is always possible that lands settled on younger
male Breuse issue could have returned to the right heirs of the
original grantor, once the male issue of the cadet branch failed. To
be sure about this point, it is necessary to examine the original
settlements of the lands belonging to Peter I de Breuse to see how
they read.
Incidentally, the name of this family appears in a various spellings
in the records of this period. The predominate early spelling appears
to have been Breuse, which spelling eventually evolved into Brewes.
The name was Breuse down to about 1300, then it became Brewes. The
spelling Braose is virtually non-existent in the original records. I
recommend you drop the Braose spelling.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
paulk...@earthlink.net (Paul Davis) wrote in message news:<3C94D89F...@earthlink.net>...
Doug Thompson
Richardson at royala...@msn.com wrote on 18/3/02 8:02 am:
> Incidentally, the name of this family appears in a various spellings
> in the records of this period. The predominate early spelling appears
> to have been Breuse, which spelling eventually evolved into Brewes.
> The name was Breuse down to about 1300, then it became Brewes. The
> spelling Braose is virtually non-existent in the original records. I
> recommend you drop the Braose spelling.
I wouldn't agree about the predominant early spelling. I suppose it
depends what you mean by early. Braosa is clearly the most common form
in the 12th century documents. There were numerous forms through the
13th century but in my experience "Brewosa" is by far the most common.
This continues through the 14th cent. (CIPM 1312 Peter de Brewosa,
CPatR 1321 Agnes, wife of Peter de Brewosa,) Breousa and Breouse are
common too.
Since the family is so well known though it would seem to make sense
to stick with the most recognised forms. Braose is the best known for
early usage and Brewes for late, becomng Brewse for the even later!
--
Regards
Doug Thompson
--------------
History and Genealogy of the Braose Family
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm
(Genealogy)
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/stage.htm
(History)
Doug Thompson
> I believe that F.N. Craig's identification of Beatrice (Brewes)
> Shirley's father, Peter de Brewes, as a younger son of Peter I de
> Breuse, by his wife, Agnes de Clifford, is probably in error.
Douglas
What is it that makes you believe that Agnes, wife of Peter I de
Braose was a Clifford? I think you have suggested this before but
never gave evidence to justify it.
Doug Thompson
Douglas Richardson
Dear Doug :
Agnes, wife of Henry Hussey and Peter I de Breuse, was identified as a
Clifford in an article on the Clifford family which appeared in a
recent issue of the Genealogist's Magazine. Unfortunately, that
particular issue was gone from the shelf at the Family History Library
when I looked for it recently, otherwise I would provide you the
citation for you. Perhaps someone else can find the specific
reference for you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
Complete Peerage shows that Peter I de Breuse's father, William de
Breuse, was summoned to Parliament under the following surnames:
Breuse, Brehuse or Brewes. Braose was not one of the names used.
Likewise, I have seen a seal of William de Breuse's brother, Richard,
where he spells his name, Breuse. These are contemporary uses of the
surname by the people themselves or people who knew them well.
I prefer the Breuse/Brewes spellings because I believe they are more
accurate. Brewosa is a Latin form of the name, by the way, not the
vernacular, much like Mortuo Mari is the Latin form of Mortimer.
Let's be sure we're talking apples and apples. Vernacular is one
thing, Latin is another. Having said that, this name rarely appears
in one record spelled the same way as the previous record. In fact, I
even saw one record recently where the name was spelled different in
the same document. All the same, I recommend you drop the Braose
spelling.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
doug.t...@virgin.net (Doug Thompson) wrote in message news:<402c5eb7.02031...@posting.google.com>...
Paul K. Davis
> Shirley's father, Peter de Brewes, as a younger son of Peter I de
> Breuse, by his wife, Agnes de Clifford, is probably in error. The
> records show that Peter I de Breuse's line eventually failed and his
> lands passed to the descendants of his older half-brother, William de
> Breuse.
Doug,
It's actually not Craig's idea, but Gerald Paget's. Craig quotes
him "he was probably younger son of Peter and Agnes". Craig's
position is "until further evidence comes to light it seems ...", so
neither of them definitely states the proposed relationship. Also,
Craig does not say "de Clifford" that I can see, and I did not quote
him as identifying Agnes as de Clifford.
What are the records which show that Peter's line eventually
failed?
Thanks again.
Chris Phillips
> Agnes, wife of Henry Hussey and Peter I de Breuse, was identified as a
> Clifford in an article on the Clifford family which appeared in a
> recent issue of the Genealogist's Magazine. Unfortunately, that
> particular issue was gone from the shelf at the Family History Library
> when I looked for it recently, otherwise I would provide you the
> citation for you. Perhaps someone else can find the specific
> reference for you.
An article by David J.H. Clifford, entitled "The Mapledurham Connection", in
the Genealogists' Magazine for September 1990 (vol.23, no 7), includes a
chart pedigree showing Alys/Annys (c.1275-1338), daughter of Roger Clifford
(1221-85) of Bridge Sollers by his 2nd wife the Countess of Loretto
(c.1271), marrying 1st Henry Hussey (1288, he d. 1290) and 2nd Peter de
Braose (1300) of Chesworth, Sussex, with issue indicated.
No source is cited (the article mainly concerns the identification of Roger
Clifford's previous wife), but Lord "The House of Clifford" (1987) by
Clifford of Chudleigh is referred to throughout the article.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for providing the Clifford citation. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<003b01c1cf2d$be25a2a0$b72186d9@oemcomputer>...
Doug Thompson
> I prefer the Breuse/Brewes spellings because I believe they are more
> accurate. Brewosa is a Latin form of the name, by the way, not the
> vernacular, much like Mortuo Mari is the Latin form of Mortimer.
> Let's be sure we're talking apples and apples. Vernacular is one
> thing, Latin is another.
I agree - but I can only find Peter de Brewosa in Latin documents. How
many vernacular ones do you have?
> All the same, I recommend you drop the Braose
> spelling.
Never! I wouldn't like to lose the link with the others. To use a
different spelling for each family member because "That's the way he
spelled it" is a recipe for confusion.
I would recommend you stick with the well known versions - Braose for
early, Brewes for late. (Peter just sits in the middle, so I would use
either in his case depending whether my main argument was going "up"
or "down" the tree.)
Regards
Doug Thompson
Robert S Baxter
the spelling.
First is noted that the family came from Briouze-Saint-Gervais, formerly
Braiose. Then is noted that in 25 early references not in charter Latin,
the name appears as Breouse, Breuse, Brewys(this still exits as a surname).
The name never appears as Braiose, the form adopted in peerages. Doubtful
there is any good authority for this form. Under Brewes, the forms Breuse,
Breusa, Breouse, Breuosa,Brewes, Bruosa are noted but after 1301, Brew or
Brewosa.
The CP opts for Brewes but take your pick.
Bob
Robert S Baxter
Bob
Sorry, typo. Brew should be Brewos'.
Bob
Paul Mackenzie
Coll.
Wiston church, Sussex
Chancel - East Window
Two Shields (ancient)
Dexter. Azure cruisily a lion rampant or. BRAOSE.
Impaling: Checky or and azure a fess gules. CLIFFORD.
Above it: "Pp. DAME ANNEYS DE BR."
Sinister: Braose as above
Impaling: Gules a bend between six crosslets fitchy argent. HOWARD.
Above it: "Pp. DAME JOH'NE DE BR."
The interesting question is: What are the arms doing there???? Peter de
Brewes d1312 of Chesworth never owned Wiston, Peter de Brewes d1378
purchased it from the king in 1357, who acquired it from the de Bavents.
Could this be a dedication from Peter de Brewes d1378 to his purported
mother "Anneys de Br." Traditionally, Peter de Brewes d1378 was said to be
the son of William de Brewes, a younger son of William de Brewes and Mary
Ros. It is only in recent years has it been suggested that Peter de Brewes
of Wiston was the son of Peter de Brewes of Chesworth. However, there is no
firm evidence.
Any comments
Douglas Richardson wrote in message
<5cf47a19.02031...@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Gee, Doug, don't be so dogmatic. Never is a long time! Besides,
this family name has MANY spellings.
The modern spelling of the French town of origin for this family is
Briouze. As such, some historians prefer that spelling. Is that also
a "recipe for confusion"? Mmmmmmmm ..... probably not. If not, then
why is Braose less confusing? This will require some thought on your
part.
Doug Thompson
> Gee, Doug, don't be so dogmatic. Never is a long time! Besides,
> this family name has MANY spellings.
Sorry Douglas, I know this argument is becoming pointless, but I do
have reasons for my choices.
> The modern spelling of the French town of origin for this family is
> Briouze. As such, some historians prefer that spelling.
As a visitor to Briouze, about to receive visitors from Briouze to
Bramber very soon I like the name too. But it's not one in common use
in English genealogical texts. (It's much more frequently used in
historical works though.)
My reason for sticking with a restricted set of spellings is that it
is often essential to put forward arguments which need early Braoses
to be linked with late Brewes characters. See my posting today about a
St Owen - Braose link. Evidence from the early documents concerning
William and Philip de Braose (11/12th cent.) is relevant to the
considerations about a marriage of Alice "Bruse" in 14/15th cent.
Regards
A slightly dogmatic Doug (Thompson)
Douglas Richardson
doug.t...@virgin.net (Doug Thompson) wrote in message news:<402c5eb7.02032...@posting.google.com>...
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Gee, Doug, don't be so dogmatic. Never is a long time! Besides,
> > this family name has MANY spellings.
>
> Sorry Douglas, I know this argument is becoming pointless, but I do
> have reasons for my choices.
>
No discussion is "pointless" if it sheds light on a dark subject.
> > The modern spelling of the French town of origin for this family is
> > Briouze. As such, some historians prefer that spelling.
>
> As a visitor to Briouze, about to receive visitors from Briouze to
> Bramber very soon I like the name too. But it's not one in common use
> in English genealogical texts. (It's much more frequently used in
> historical works though.)
>
> My reason for sticking with a restricted set of spellings is that it
> is often essential to put forward arguments which need early Braoses
> to be linked with late Brewes characters. See my posting today about a
> St Owen - Braose link. Evidence from the early documents concerning
> William and Philip de Braose (11/12th cent.) is relevant to the
> considerations about a marriage of Alice "Bruse" in 14/15th cent.
Your rationale for the use of the spelling Braose above doesn't make a
bit of sense to me. Can you please try explaining yourself again?
Specifically, what is your point?
Since you asked for examples of the vernacular use of the original
surname, may I suggest you consult the standard source, Roll of Arms
Edward I (1272-1307) by Gerard J. Brault. In volume 2 (published
1997), pp. 75-76, he lists the arms of several Breuse men who were
living in this time period:
Munsire de Breuuse - not identified (name as in original entry)
John de Breuse
Richard de Breuse
Reynold de Brewes (name is evidently Reynad de Brewes in original
record).
William de Brewes (name is evidently William de Breus in original
record).
In this case, the editor, Mr. Brault, uses the spelling Breuse for the
family which interestingly happens to be the spelling I prefer for the
early family. In his text, he provides three instances in italics of
the exact spelling as it appeared in the original roll of arms, namely
Breuuse, Brewes, and Breus. Nary a Braose or Briouze among them.
Mr. Brault is a very sound historian, by the way. He did a superior
job of editing his text. If you're afraid mass "confusion" will ensue
if you adopt a more accurate spelling, it would appear that Mr. Brault
wasn't not troubled by such a concern. Nor am I. The foundation of
good genealogy, indeed the only foundation, is accuracy. This matter
deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Doug Thompson
you said
"Your rationale for the use of the spelling Braose above doesn't make
a bit of sense to me. Can you please try explaining yourself again?
Specifically, what is your point?"
OK I'll try.
Your introduction of Brault's work makes it easier for me.
I'm quoting from his "Eight Thirteenth Century Rolls of Arms...."
In his index he gives "Breuse, John de "
This refers to the individual in Walford's Roll
(Charles version) - Jehan de Brus in the original
(Leland's version, copy a) - John de Brusse in the original
(Leland's version, copy b) - Jon de Breusse in the original
Another in the index is "Brewes, William de"
The original records here are from Glover's Roll, St George's version
:
(copy a) - Willame de Brus (copy b) - Willam de Brus
The Camden Roll : Willam de Breousse
The Falkirk Roll : Willam de Breuse
A third indexed is "Brus, Piers de"
Glover's Roll (a) - Peres de Brus (b) - Peres de Bruse
A fourth is "Brus, Robert de"
Camden Roll - Robert de Brus
So much for vernacular evidence (one use of Breuse in 6 mentions of
the family) and Brault's choice of Breuse!
The John he chooses to call Breuse is in fact a member of the Bruce
family.
The William is a Braose. (Brault chooses Brewes)
The Piers is a Braose (Brault chooses Brus this time)
The Robert is a Bruce (Brault chooses Brus again)
The families are easily distinguished by the arms given.
But how could I have explained this to you without using my Braose
word. The families of Braose and Bruce are well known to genealogists.
Distinctions need to be made.
Common usage is important for understanding too.
My Google search on the internet shows 11800 mentions of Braose. It
shows 2350 for Breuse, most of which are nothing to do with the family
at all!
I hope you now can understand why I am unlikely to stop using the word
and certainly would not advise others to.
Is this discussion what people mean by "a Brewesing Encounter"?
Doug Thompson
Douglas Richardson
Many thanks for your good post. I'm glad to see you examined Brault
for yourself. The issue of the correct surname for medieval families
is a thorny one. I occasionally find the vernacular name of the
family in the original records is at odds with the "prevalent"
spelling of the family name in modern literature.
A favorite trend is to use the modern spelling of the parish where the
family was seated, or in the case of the Breuse/Brewes family, the
parish of origin on the Continent. So, we are told the medieval
family was called Poynings, which is the way the modern parish is
spelled, where in actuality the family spelled their name Ponynges or
some similar derivate.
Historians and genealogists then reverse themselves and use the
spelling Echingham for the family, whereas I believe the modern parish
is Etchingham.
Another example is the surname Burghersh, which I often find in the
original records as Burwash or some variant. The modern parish is
Burwash, but Burghersh persists in the literature for the surname. If
historians were consistent, it should be Poynings, Etchingham and
Burwash. But, they are not consistent. This makes accuracy in
genealogy a very elusive goal.
It's a pity than earlier historians were not more careful to
approximate the spelling of the surnames in the vernacular tongue more
closely. Since they were careless, we are left with a hodge podge of
spellings, some accurate, some not.
To Burghersh or not to Burwash, that is the question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
doug.t...@virgin.net (Doug Thompson) wrote in message news:<402c5eb7.02032...@posting.google.com>...
ADRIANC...@cs.com
writes:
Douglas Richardson
> To Burghersh or not to Burwash, that is the question.
>
I have a feeling that the locals pronounce the place something like Burrish,
so you may prefer another spelling on your side of the pond. :-)
Adrian
Renia
> Dear Doug:
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> Complete Peerage shows that Peter I de Breuse's father, William de
> Breuse, was summoned to Parliament under the following surnames:
> Breuse, Brehuse or Brewes. Braose was not one of the names used.
> Likewise, I have seen a seal of William de Breuse's brother, Richard,
> where he spells his name, Breuse. These are contemporary uses of the
> surname by the people themselves or people who knew them well.
Here, in Sussex, the family is commonly known as de Braose. The family took its name from Briouze Saint Gervase.
Renia
Renia
with bird)
It's from old English, burgh + ersc meaning ploughed field by the fort.
Rudyard Kipling lived there.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C9E7058...@ntlworld.com...