Re: BREWES - NUTHILL- COKESEY Connection

[Paul K Davis]

Yes, I do believe Alice, wife of Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter
Braose "of Tetbury". The evidence is substantial, but not absolutely
conclusive. Since I last corresponded on this issue, I have found two
further pieces of supporting evidence, but feel I need to continue my
search before publishing.
Alice has a great many living descendants, including ourselves and Queen
Elizabeth. Immigrant Davenport and the historian Edward Gibbon were also
her descendants.

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

> [Original Message]
> From: <minnma...@yahoo.com (minnman)>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Date: 5/3/2004 11:05:07 AM
> Subject: Re: BREWES - NUTHILL- COKESEY Connection
>
> Several visitation pedigrees list Alice, wife of Ralph St. Owen, as
> daughter of Pier de Brewes. Paul Davis has done extensive work
> regarding the identity of this Pier de Brewes, and there is a good
> possibility that he is the same as Peter of Tetbury. However, at last
> word conclusive proof is still lacking.
>
> mn
>

[Robert O'Connor]

On Thursday, 6 May 2004 17:10:21 UTC+12, Paul K Davis wrote:
> Yes, I do believe Alice, wife of Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter
> Braose "of Tetbury". The evidence is substantial, but not absolutely
> conclusive. Since I last corresponded on this issue, I have found two
> further pieces of supporting evidence, but feel I need to continue my
> search before publishing.
> Alice has a great many living descendants, including ourselves and Queen
> Elizabeth. Immigrant Davenport and the historian Edward Gibbon were also
> her descendants.
>
> -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]
>

It is a while since this topic was discussed, but I wonder if any further proof has been found to confirm that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury (Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2)?

Peter Davis' article on the origins of Alice may be found at https://www.academia.edu/14440889/The_St.Owen_Descent_from_Braose

I note in the meantime that Douglas Richardson in his 'Royal Ancestry' does not list Alice as a daughter of Sir Peter Braose. I presume that Douglas has reviewed Paul Davis' work and concluded that she was not Sir Peter's daughter?

Comments welcome

Robert O'Connor

[wbld....@gmail.com]

I think this is a new piece of evidence:

'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975)
“[327] E/840      1316
MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL:
She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated)
(French) (MS defective)”

According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291).


William Acton

[Robert O'Connor]

Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated.

The presumed line of descent is thus:

Mary de Ros, M William, 1st Baron Braose (d 1290). Died before 23 May 1326. She had issue:
/
Sir Peter de Braose, of Tetbury, Co. Glouc., M 1300 Agnes (M 1st Henry Hussey, of Harting, Sussex, who died 1289. She was recorded as living in 1324 & as recently dead in 1333), sister of Robert, 1st Baron Clifford, & d. of Roger de Clifford, Lord of Tenbury, Co. Worc. Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2. He had issue:
/
Alice de Braose, M Ralph St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex (He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey). Died after 1362. She had issue:
/
John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”.

If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros).

Is this a correct interpretation?

Robert O'Connor

[Douglas Richardson]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote:

> Is this a correct interpretation?
>
> Robert O'Connor

Dear Robert ~

Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed.

According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless.

Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family.

The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters.

For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff.

In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Robert O'Connor]

Thanks Douglas, I appreciate your comments on the Visitation pedigrees and on Paul Davis' thesis.

However you didn't comment on the petition kindly quoted by William Acton above.

This is a new piece of evidence that Paul Davis wasn't aware of. Do you have any comment on that?

To repeat my question - if the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then would this confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros).

Is this a correct interpretation?

The 1305 Court of Common Pleas case that you have mentioned appears to refer to earlier generations of the St Owen family, and whilst interesting, is not strictly relevant to the question at issue.

Robert O'Connor

[wbld....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 4:54:14 AM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote:
>
> > Is this a correct interpretation?
> >
> > Robert O'Connor
>
> Dear Robert ~
>
> Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed.

You should reread his paper. Davis marshalls several pieces of contemporary evidence to support his case, for example:

“The facts that John St.Owen owed a substantial sum to Thomas de Braose, and that his son's chamber's daubing was paid by the manor of Wiston owned by Peter de Braose (of Wiston), are suggestive that he was a close relative of them.”

> According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless.

Davis identifies the 1569 visitation of Herefordshire by Robert Cooke as the earliest source for Alice’s surname and paternity. In that visitation, her father is identified as “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” and the arms shown are of the Braose family.

As for the Visitation of Shropshire, Davis does have a go at identifying ‘Hochampe’:

“One source calls Alice's father "de Hochampe". This may be considered a clue, but only a clue. Furthermore, it is uncertain what this means. I consider the most likely meaning to be "of Horsham", but there is a Huxham it might refer to, or it might be a transcription error for "Bokham".”

As Davis points out, Sir Peter’s family had links with Horsham (his grandson Thomas was buried there).

> Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family.

You have no grounds to be making assurances. You assume that Alice’s father was a cadet of the senior Brewes family; Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury was exactly that.

> The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters.

Good point about the other daughters, but this is a later visitation and it doesn’t mean Alice de Braose didn’t exist.

> For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff.
>
> In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm).
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Davis comments that “In 1316 Ralph St.Owen's property was in the hands of his overlord, Mary, widow of William Braose and mother of this Peter Braose. She would probably have controlled his marriage as well, and either controlled or had substantial influence over the marriages of any children of her recently deceased son Peter. This provides opportunity for the marriage. Motive is that any daughters of Peter, having at least two brothers, would have had no inheritance, and Ralph held several manors in Sussex, Herefordshire and Radnorshire, which would provide a nice support for him and his wife.”

The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion.

William Acton

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, wbld....@gmail.com wrote:

< The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion.
<
< William Acton

Dear William ~

Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312. However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named in the Visitation. Mr. Davis has put forward a working theory that is all, not a conclusion. As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed.

As I stated in my earlier message, the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire is not the most reliable visitation. I would urge you to verify everything that you find in that visitation. Mr. Davis has shown that the Saint Owen family were tenants of the senior Brewes family. That, however, does not prove the existence of "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, or that Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was his daughter.

One other thing: In this time period, the surname is spelled Brewes, Breuse, Brehuse, Breouse, Breus, but not Braose.

[taf]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:44:16 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, wbld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> < The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion.
> <
> < William Acton
>

> Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620
> Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter
> de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312.

Or more accurately, he hasn't proven that the “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” of the 1589 Herefordshire visitation is the same as Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire.

> However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or
> even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named
> in the Visitation.

You express this like it is a prerequisite. It is not. To prove this connection he need not prove that Peter de Brewes had three daughters, just the relevant one, and she need not have been an heiress. It sort of loses track of the goal to focus only on the 1620 visitation and insist that it must be perfectly accurate for the relationship to be true.

> As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed.

Yes, and he believes it is not flawed. So far, the only reason you have given is that it is that the connection is hinted at in (but not exclusively in) an imperfect 1620 visitation. That may be reason to believe the solution is unproven, but doesn't really hit the mark in explaining why it is flawed.

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

I agree with Todd. The statement from Douglas:

"Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. "

Seems to lack the requisite proof required to make such a statement. Is there other evidence that truly rules this out that hasn't been presented?

And before someone says "you can't prove a negative", the statement above is worded such that it does require proof to support. Certainly more proof than is needed to have a "working theory" that she was a daughter. It is reasonable to say that a link is not sufficiently proven, but this statement rules it out and indicates looking for more evidence would be a waste of time

--Joe Cook

[Doug Thompson]

Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.

Doug Thompson

[wbld....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:18:47 PM UTC+1, Doug Thompson wrote:
> Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.
>
> Doug Thompson

Doug,

The petition shows us that Ralph and Alice’s son John was alive in 1316. We know that Sir Peter de Brewes and his wife Agnes were married in 1300, so if Alice was their daughter she must have had a child aged between 12 and 15, which is a pretty tight window. Peter and Agnes are known to have several other children between 1300 and 1312, so this seems to count against the idea of a connection.

I find it curious that Mary de Ros was petitioning on behalf of Ralph’s infant son John rather than Ralph himself. Can anyone suggest why Mary did this? Davis shows that Ralph was under age in 1316 and had attained his majority by 1323.

[Doug Thompson]

William,

I agree that this petition makes it unlikely that John is the son of Alice, daughter of Peter de Braose. However, the first mention of Alice is in 1361, I think, as Ralph's widow. It is by no means unlikely that Alice was Ralph's wife but not John's mother.

So I don't think the petition does shed any light on the possibilities for Alice's parentage.

I too find the petition strange, for if Ralph is under age, John must be a small child. It does not say what it was that Thomas had taken from John. Maybe it was a valuable object owned by the child.

Doug Thompson

[wbld....@gmail.com]

The following fine, which does not appear in Davis' paper, proves that they were married by at least 1330:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_82_37.shtml#21

More importantly, Davis points out that the 1408 IPM of 'Joan wife of Thomas Dounton' confirms that John was the son of Ralph and Alice:

"Robert de St. Audoen held the manor of Burton in his demesne as of fee and granted it by charter to Ralph de St. Audoen and Alice his wife and their heirs. They had issue John, who had issue John, Thomas and Joan. John had issue Isabel..."

So Ralph and Alice were indeed John's parents. If Alice was Peter's daughter then she was a very young mother, but given that Ralph was also underage in 1316 that makes sense.

[Robert O'Connor]

Whilst it appears that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen, was unlikely to have been a daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury, it may be of interest if I post what I have been able to piece together on the St Owen family.

Any additions (especially in terms of identifying any of the unknown spouses) or comments would be welcome.

I descend from the family via the Downtons.

Robert O'Connor

_______________

RALPH ST OWEN, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., He was recorded as under age in 1316. M before 1316 Alice (Died after 1362). He attained his majority by 1323. It is recorded by Rees in his 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century' – as follows - “[327] E/840. 1316. Mary, widow of William de Brewose, To the King & Council: She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son & heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage & service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands nor tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor & County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy”. He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey. He & his wife were mentioned in a fine, 20 Oct. 1330. Died after 1330. He had issue:
/
JOHN ST OWEN, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., Born by 1316. It is recorded by Rees in his 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century' – as follows - “[327] E/840. 1316. Mary, widow of William de Brewose, To the King & Council: She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son & heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage & service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands nor tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor & County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy”. M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”. He had issue:
/
JOHN ST OWEN, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., Born 1347 – as recorded in his father’s I.P.M. He was mentioned in his father’s I.P.M., as follows – “John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”, 18 Oct. 1371. M Jane, d. & heiress of Sir Hugh Tyrell, Kt., of Bromscroste, Co. Salop & Tirrell’s Court, Co. Hereford. Died shortly before 5 May 1385. He had issue:
/
1.John St Owen, M Isabel (She M 2nd Richard Lingen, of Lingen, Co. Hereford), d. of Philip Holgate. Died before 1400. He had issue:
1a.Isabel, d.s.p.

2.Joan St Owen, M Roger Downton, of Downton, Co. Hereford. Died 20 May 1403 – as recorded in her I.P.M. I.P.M. dated 16 July 1406 – in which it was recorded as follows - “Joan wife of Roger Dounton, rightly called Joan wife of Thomas Dounton, sister & heir of Thomas Seyntoweyn, brother & heir of John Seyntoweyn, held: In the Welsh March: the manor of Burlingjobb & Walton, the manor of Womaston, & two parts of 57 s. rent in Presteigne with the reversion of the third part which Richard Lyngayn & Isabel his wife, formerly the wife of John Seyntoweyn, now hold in the dower of Isabel…She died on 20 May 1403. Thomas her son & heir is aged 7 years”. In the ‘Calendar of Close Rolls’ it was recorded as follows – “remove the King’s hand…the manor of Berteleynghope & Walton & the manor of Wymaston…57s of rent in Presthemde…two thirds of a toft, 50 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, 6 acres of wood & 5s of rent in Gerneston…Joan was wife of Roger Dounton deceased, other incorrectly called Joan who was wife of Thomas Dounton, at her death held the same & the reversion of a third part…held in dower by Richard Lyngayn & Isabel his wife sometime wife of John Seyntoweyn, as sister & heir of line of Thomas Seyntoweyn brother & & heir of the said John…& that Patrick Seynt Oweyn has taken the issues of profits thereof since the day of her death…the matter understood…the seizures of the premises was improper, wherefore it was determined that the King’s hane be removed”, 1408. In the ‘Calendar of Fine Rolls’ it was recorded as follows –“1410. March 20. Westminster. Commitment to Nicholas Merbury & John Merbery, esquires by mainprise of Thomas Holgotm, esquire, & Edmund Morys – of the keeping of the manor of Clopham, co. Sussex, which came to the King’s hands by the death of Thomas Seyntowayn, who held of Thomas late earl marshall in chief, & which is still in the King’s hand by reason of the minority of John, brother & heir of the said earl, the King’s ward, & of Thomas Dounton, son of Joan the sister of the said Thomas Seyntowayn & his kinsman & next heir; to hold the same until the lawful age of the said Thomas Dounton, & from heir to heir until one of them shall have attained full age…” She had issue.

3.Thomas St Owen, It was recorded in the ‘Victoria County History of Sussex’ in respect of the Manor of Clapham as follows – “In 1402 Thomas St. Owen, son & heir of John St. Owen, died a minor & was succeeded by his father's uncle Patrick, but 8 years later Patrick was shown not to have been the rightful heir & the manor passed to Thomas Downton, nephew of Thomas St. Owen & then a minor. At his death, before 1456, he was succeeded by his three daughters”. Died 1402. I.P.M. (Hereford), 16 Feb. 1404/5 – “They say ... John is brother of Thomas Seyntoweyn, son of John, son of John, son of John, son of Ralph junior, son of Ralph senior. His predecessors died seised of the manors from time immemorial. They descended from father to son, from Ralph to Ralph to John to John to John & so to Thomas. Patrick is the next heir of Thomas, being the son of Ralph junior, father of John, father of John”. I.P.M. 1410 – “Thomas son & heir of John Seyntoweyn. Writ, plenius certiorari, reciting the last inquisition & saying that Patrick was not the heir, but that Joan sister of Thomas was & Thomas son of Joan now is. Order to inquire, 24 Feb. 1410. Sussex. Inquisition. Bramber. 4 March. Patrick, named in the inquisition, was not the heir on 22 June 1402, but Joan sister of Thomas then was, Thomas Dounton, son of Joan, is now next heir & aged 11 years & more”. d.s.p.

[wbld....@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 11:13:02 AM UTC+1, Robert O'Connor wrote:
> Whilst it appears that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen, was unlikely to have been a daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury, it may be of interest if I post what I have been able to piece together on the St Owen family.
>
> Any additions (especially in terms of identifying any of the unknown spouses) or comments would be welcome.
>
> I descend from the family via the Downtons.
>
> Robert O'Connor

<snip>

I still think it more likely than not, but each to their own. Ralph died long after the fine of 1330, see Davis' paper:

"On Nov. 18 of 1351 Ralph was appointed sheriff and escheator for the counties of Surrey and Sussex, and served in this capacity through 1353 Oct. 31. Sometime between 1356 and 1361 Ralph died, probably in 1357, as in that year son John had to acknowledge a debt of 300 lb. to [his presumed] uncle Thomas de Braose."

Ralph's son John may have married a woman named Margaret (see her IPM in Davis' paper - but note her relationship is not stated).

There are carvings believed to represent Thomas Acton and Joan Downton in the home Thomas built c. 1467 (the Moat House, Longnor). He is shown bearded and she is wearing a wimple.

[Doug Thompson]

William

Thanks for your extra information which clears away my idea that Alice may not have been John's mother.

Although the timeframes are quite tight, I lean then towards the belief that Alice was daughter of Peter de Braose.

Doug Thompson

[pmacke...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 5:18:47 AM UTC+10, Doug Thompson wrote:
> Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.
>
> Doug Thompson

The following supports the contention that the Owens did not receive Clapham as the result of Ralph's marriage to Alice.

1268
Inter WILLM DE BREOUS quer'et RADM. DE SCO. AUDOENO deforc':- De serviciis que exigebat de Rado. de libero tenemento suo in CLOPHAM, scil' de duobus feodis militum, unde Wills. exigebat quod faceret ei ad wardam castri de Brembre quando evenerit et ad muragium ejusdem castri quando necesse esset quantum ad predictum tenementum pertinet, que servicia ei non cognovit:- Wills. concessit quod Rads. et heredes sui et eorum tenentes de honore de Brembre sint quieti de predictis serviciis salvis Willo. et hbs. suis omnibus aliis serviciis ad predictum tenementum pertinentibus : - Pro hoc fine Rads. dedit Willo. viginti et quatuor marcas. Et hec concordia facta fuit ex assensu et voluntate domini regis et eam concedentis [ 52 Hen. III. Westm. Cras. Ascencionis ( File 25 No. 21).
Feet of Fines for the County of Sussex p65 No. 736,(S.R.S. vii)

1268
Between WILLIAM DE BREOUSE purchaser RALPH DE ST. OWEN seller:- William demands services of Ralph for free land held of him in CLAPHAM, that is to say of two knight's fees, from which William demands that he should do as much for the ward of the Brembre Castle [castle guard services] and murage of said castle when necessary [upkeep of castle walls] as pertaining to the services of the preceding lands of Ralph, which services Ralph has not performed, from which plea an agreement exists between them:- William grants the preceding Ralph and his heirs and tenants of him of the honour of Brembre to be exempt in the preceding services due to William and his heirs concerning the preceding land. On behalf of which fine Ralph has given to William 24 marks and this agreement happened with the assent and good will of lord king. [52 Hen III. Westminster. Day before Feast of Ascension.] (File 25. No. 21)
Feet of Fines for the County of Sussex p65 No. 736,(S.R.S. vii)