Braose Beauchamp marriage

[Doug Thompson]

Fifteen years ago (Sep 2002!) we had a discussion on this list about the Braose Beauchamp marriage between Bertha and William or Walter. I joined in with Chris Phillips, Cris Nash and John Ravilious trying to come to a considered conclusion, which I think we did - That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197).

I have just come across a piece of information which throws that conclusion out!

There is a fine recorded in the unpublished transcripts of the Sele Priory Charters at Magdelen College, Oxford between John de Braose and Reginald de Braose dated July 1227.

In it Reginald acknowledges the Honour of Bramber and the Manor of Tetbury to belong to John

“excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse, grandfather of John & father of Reginald which, with whatever else accrues in escheats etc in Normandy, England or Wales, they are to divide.”

This indicates that Bertha married Walter de Beauchamp, still alive then, not his father William!

Comments?

Doug Thompson

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:58:55 PM UTC-4, Doug Thompson wrote:
> <snip> That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197).
<snip>

> This indicates that Bertha married Walter de Beauchamp, still alive then, not his father William!

Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s).
--Joe C

[Doug Thompson]

Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be reassessed. May take a while.

Doug

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote:

> > Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only
> > months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp
> > then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving
> > wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s).
>

> Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably
> have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be
> reassessed. May take a while.

With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation.

taf

[John Watson]

Hi all,

The evidence is as follows:

In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:-
1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam.
Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400.

The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:-
1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.
Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418.

The fine of 3,000 marks was still outstanding in 1229, after the death of Hugh de Mortimer:-
8 July 1229, For Ralph de Mortimer. To the barons of the Exchequer. The king has pardoned to Ralph de Mortimer, brother and heir of Hugh de Mortimer, for his faithful service, up to £500 of the £511 2s. 4d. that is exacted from the same Ralph at the Exchequer for the same Hugh of the fine which Roger de Mortimer, father of Hugh and Ralph, made with King John, the king’s father, for having custody of Walter de Beauchamp.
Calendar of Fine Rolls 13 Henry III, No. 255.

I can't imagine Roger de Mortimer paying (or owing) such a huge amount of money if Walter de Beauchamp did not marry his daughter.

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

On 31/05/2017 12:08 PM, John Watson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 02:29:17 UTC+1, taf wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>> Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only
>>>> months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp
>>>> then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving
>>>> wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s).
>>> Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably
>>> have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be
>>> reassessed. May take a while.
>> With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation.
>>
>> taf
> Hi all,
>
> The evidence is as follows:
>
> In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:-
> 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam.
> Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400.
>
> The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:-
> 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.
> Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418.

The editor made no remark on the name of Joan's husband in the second of
these entries, but in the first he noted that Walter's Mortimer wife was
Joan who died in 1225. The index makes clear that Joan was the wife of
Walter the 4th baron, who died on 11 April 1236 according to the same
annals.

Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying,
rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton.
Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the
initial W. is given there under 1225.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying,
> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton.
> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the
> initial W. is given there under 1225.

I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process.

As far as I can tell, only Caligula A VII, XIV and XV are currently online.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying,
>> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton.
>> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the
>> initial W. is given there under 1225.
> I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process.

This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting

the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their

heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July
1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose
had died in 1197.

Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the
original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters
of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to
be the son rather than husband of Berta?

Peter Stewart

[John Watson]

Hi all,

It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere.

Does anyone have access to:
L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923)
or,
C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003)

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

Doug Thompson noted that it came from "the unpublished transcripts of
the Sele Priory Charters at Magdelen College, Oxford" - I was wondering
where he found this information. I assume it doesn't appear in Salzman's
edition of the cartulary.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

No. It doesn't. There are many documents in the Sele Priory archive at Magdalen College of which Salzman's book are just a few. Someone called Macray catalogued them all and his transcripts / descriptions are held at Magdalen. A friend of mine visited the archive and photographed these catalogues. The particular document in question has a history of its own.

This is actually a description, rather than a transcript, of a copy, on paper, in the fifteenth century of a fine at Westminster between John and Reginald de Braose.

That fifteenth century copy is at Magdalen catalogued under "Bidlington and Bramber 20". I have not seen it.

I realise that there is room to question the accuracy of copies and transcripts but think that this just adds to the long debate about the Braose Beauchamp marriage and who the wife /wives of Walter de Beauchamp were.

I suppose we have to acknowledge that the documents available are contradictory so at least some of them must be mistaken! It will have to be down to each person's judgement as to what conclusion to come to.

Doug Thompson

[joe...@gmail.com]

I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well.

[Peter Stewart]

On 31/05/2017 10:04 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well.

That's why I thought the meaning "descended from" would encompass both
men's family circumstances.

Without the original text we can only grope in the dark. Luckily,
publishing extracts in English from unpublished Latin documents (as with
Salzman's "edition" of the Sele priory cartulary) is getting to be a
thing of the past, and perhaps before too long Magdalen will use some of
its wealth to get a proper and complete edition of their documents
published.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:17:16 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:

The thing I find most interesting is that the reservation made on the fine is about "THE SERVICES of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer and their heirs... " Surely this implies that Reginald is referring to living people which can only mean Walter (d1235).

Also, I read only yesterday that William de Braose was granted custody of Elmley in 1202. That looks like it may have included custody of Walter then. If so Braose may have married Walter to his daughter as a first marriage. Mortimer is granted custody of Walter in 1212 after the death of Braose. Perhaps Bertha had had heirs in that time but had died subsequently.

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

On 1/06/2017 10:01 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:17:16 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 31/05/2017 10:04 PM, joe....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well.
>> That's why I thought the meaning "descended from" would encompass both
>> men's family circumstances.
>>
>> Without the original text we can only grope in the dark. Luckily,
>> publishing extracts in English from unpublished Latin documents (as with
>> Salzman's "edition" of the Sele priory cartulary) is getting to be a
>> thing of the past, and perhaps before too long Magdalen will use some of
>> its wealth to get a proper and complete edition of their documents
>> published.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> The thing I find most interesting is that the reservation made on the fine is about "THE SERVICES of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer and their heirs... " Surely this implies that Reginald is referring to living people which can only mean Walter (d1235).

This is my assumption, that is why I wondered if the fine might be
reserving the rights of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer who
were both living and of their heirs who were descendants of William de
Braiose through two of the latter's daughters, i.e. one who was the
mother of Walter and the other the wife of Hugh. Whatever their current
family circumstances in 1227, either or both of these men in might end
up having collateral agnatic heirs who were not descendants of William
de Braiose.

>
> Also, I read only yesterday that William de Braose was granted custody of Elmley in 1202. That looks like it may have included custody of Walter then. If so Braose may have married Walter to his daughter as a first marriage. Mortimer is granted custody of Walter in 1212 after the death of Braose. Perhaps Bertha had had heirs in that time but had died subsequently.
>
>

Depending on what the original document actually says, rather than going
by what the modern summary may seem to say, it may not be necessary to
come up with alternative scenarios to the former conclusion that Berta
de Braiose was Walter's mother. The name of Berta's mother occurs in the
Beauchamp family, apparently in the same generation as Walter, with
Matilda who married Robert Marmion - her son called himself "filius
Matillis de belo Campo" (by the way, hardly suggesting that the
"vernacular" form of her name was anything much like "Maud").

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 1/06/2017 11:58 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> Depending on what the original document actually says, rather than
> going by what the modern summary may seem to say, it may not be
> necessary to come up with alternative scenarios to the former
> conclusion that Berta de Braiose was Walter's mother. The name of
> Berta's mother occurs in the Beauchamp family, apparently in the same
> generation as Walter, with Matilda who married Robert Marmion - her
> son called himself "filius Matillis de belo Campo" (by the way, hardly
> suggesting that the "vernacular" form of her name was anything much
> like "Maud").
>
> Peter Stewart
>
> Peter Stewart

O dear, I was having a "covfefe" moment - apart from not signing twice,
I should have written 'her son called himself "filius Matillis de Bello
Campo"...'

Peter (once is probably enough) Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but -

What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother!

Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many.

Just my thoughts

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote:
> I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but -
>
> What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother!
>
> Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many.

The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have
married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of
age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the
evidence is?

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

I have seen Joan de St Valery married to two different Williams in the pedigree but not this one before! I thought she was invented as a device to explain the Beachamp possession of the Tetbury lands, which Bertha's marriage does better.

Is there any evidence at all for the existence of this Joan de St Valery?

Doug Thompson

[John Watson]

So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222).

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

I was hoping you would answer this - I have no idea. There is an article
on the St Valery family by Herbert Fowler in *The Genealogist*, new
series 30 (1914) pp 1-16 & table, but unfortunately Internet Archive is
having pathway troubles and can't be accessed (from Australia anyway) at
present, so I can't find out if Joan is mentioned there. She does come
up in a suspicious number of genealogy websites, in common with many an
invented personage...

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 2/06/2017 9:58 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 2/06/2017 6:56 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:

> I was hoping you would answer this - I have no idea. There is an
> article on the St Valery family by Herbert Fowler in *The
> Genealogist*, new series 30 (1914) pp 1-16 & table, but unfortunately
> Internet Archive is having pathway troubles and can't be accessed
> (from Australia anyway) at present, so I can't find out if Joan is
> mentioned there.

I got there through a proxy server, and she is not mentioned by Fowler -
a fairly good indication that she probably didn't exist.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

> So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222).
>
> Regards,
>
> John

I think this William comes from a different family group.

Doug

[John Watson]

Dear all,

I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose.

There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: -
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf

Here is an edited transcription:
16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn]
CP 25/1/73/4, number 20.
C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124.

At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose.

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

On Monday, 5 June 2017 14:22:57 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose.
>
> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: -
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf
>
> Here is an edited transcription:
> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn]
> CP 25/1/73/4, number 20.
> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124.
>
> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose.
>
> Regards,
>
> John

I should point out that land held by "free marriage" was the maritagium of the woman and held by her and her heirs for three generations. So Walter de Beauchamp as the son and heir of Bertha could be said to be holding the land in free marriage.

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose.
>
> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: -
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf
>
> Here is an edited transcription:
> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn]
> CP 25/1/73/4, number 20.
> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124.
>
> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose.
>

But how can we be sure that the editor had not made a slip in "William
de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather", and that this should instead
be "William de Braose his [i.e. Reynold's] grandfather"?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 6/06/2017 8:02 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote:
>>

> But how can we be sure that the editor had not made a slip in "William
> de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather", and that this should

> instead be "William de Braose his [i.e. Reynold's] grandfather"?

And how can we be sure which Walter de Beauchamp this is who was
evidently married to Berta de Braose? Since he was still holding her
father's land in free marriage in August 1221, it can't very well be the
lord of Elmley - the latter was married to Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and
she did not die until 1225. Presumably either Berta was still living in
August 1221, or her father's land would have gone to her heir (not to
her widower) by then.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The original is here:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm

Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly what
it says.

Peter Stewart

[The Hoorn]

Speaking of Beauchamp marriages, has anyone found no explicit evidence that Em(m)eline was the daughter of Urse d'Abitot?

[The Hoorn]

Correction: I meant to ask:

Speaking of Beauchamp marriages, has anyone found anyexplicit evidence that Em(m)eline was the daughter of Urse d'Abitot?

[John Watson]

On Tuesday, 6 June 2017 06:11:55 UTC+1, The Hoorn wrote:
> Correction: I meant to ask:
>
> Speaking of Beauchamp marriages, has anyone found anyexplicit evidence that Em(m)eline was the daughter of Urse d'Abitot?

William de Beauchamp (died 1170) confirmed Walter his father's grant of land and tithes to Worcester Cathedral priory, including a virgate of land held by Alfred, chaplain of Urse d'Abetot, his grandfather.

William's mother was a daughter of Urse d'Abetot, but I have not seen any contemporary evidence that her name was Emmeline. Dugdale identified her from a register of the dean and chapter of Worcester which is now lost.

Willelmus de Bello campo omnibus ministris suis et ballivis de Wirecestre scira salutem, Sciatis me concessise et confirmasse donationem illam, quam pater meus Walterus fecit Priori et Monachis de Wirecestria de una virgata terrae quam Elfredus capellanus Ursonis de Abbetot avi mei tenuit. Et volo, ut teneant eam liberam et quietam de geldis et omnibus secularibus exactionibus, sicut elemosinam patris mei et matris meae. T. Isnardo, Rogero de Lenz &c.'
William Hale Hale, Registrum sive Liber Irrotularius et Consuetudinarius Prioratus Beatae Mariae Wigorniensis (London, 1865), 92a.

Regards,

John

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

On 5/06/2017 11:22 PM, John Watson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I now have a copy of the Feet of Fines for Gloucestershire, 1199-1299 (£5+p&p). The July 1227 fine mentioned by Doug does not seem to exist, however, there is another fine concerning the manor of Tetbury dated August 1221, which mentions Walter de Beauchamp and Bertha, daughter of William de Braose.
>
> There is a pdf scan of the relevant fine here, for those who are interested: -
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77946141/Genealogy%20Notes/CP%2025-1-73-4%20no%2020.pdf
>
> Here is an edited transcription:
> 16 August 1221, Gloucester. Morrow of the Assumption. Walter de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) petitioner: Reynold de Braose (Breaus) tenant. Half of the manor of Tetbury (Tetebir'), Writ of mort d'ancestor. Reynold acknowledged and granted to Walter £15 of land in the said manor, that is [list of yardlands with tenants]. To hold to Walter in free marriage for the land which William de Braose his [i.e. Walter's] grandfather [avus] gave to Bertha his daughter in marriage, in land and rents in villeinage, with the villeins holding those villeinages with all their families (sequele), and in homage and services of free men, in meadows and common pastures and easements and in all other things belonging to the £15 of land. For this Walter remised and quitclaimed to Reynold the residue of half of the manor. Made in the presence of Robert de Charlton, Walter de Upton, Adam de Charlton, and Ellis le Tailor, who acknowledged that they owed the said services. Endorsed: Glouc' in the fifth year of H[enry III]. Thomasyn. Gloucestr' [Worn]
> CP 25/1/73/4, number 20.
> C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003), 23, no. 124.
>
> At first sight it would appear that Bertha, daughter of William de Braose was the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, since he was holding half of Tetbury in free marriage, and in fact the editor of the volume has shown this in the index. However, the fine also states that Walter de Beauchamp was the grandson of William de Braose, so Walter must have been the son of Bertha de Braose.
>

From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: 06 June 2017 01:28
>>
>> The original is here:
>>
>> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_73_4-16/IMG_0104.htm
>>
>> Someone with better eyesight than mine may be able to read exactly what
it says.
>>
>> Peter Stewart

-------------------------------
It says (in the fifth and fourth lines up from the bottom):

‘Habenda et Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m maritag[ium] p[ro] t[er]ra q[ua]m Will[elmu]s d[e] Breaus ...us suus dedit Berte filie sue in maritag[iu]m'

The crucial forename is a little unclear, but after comparing it to other occurrences of Walter and William elsewhere in the document I'm confident it is 'Will's', not 'Walt'.

The crucial word describing the relationship between William de Breaus and Walter isn't legible in the photo (save that it seems to end in 'us'), but can probably be made out in the original document (especially with the aid of UV light) - I'd be happy to accept Elrington's reading of it as 'auus'.

It isn't absolutely clear whether the 'his' in 'filie sue' refers back to William or Walter., though if I had to choose one way or the other I'd plump for William.

Matt Tompkins

[Peter Stewart]

Thanks, your eyes are far sharper than mine - pity they didn't opt for higher-definition images.

My knowledge of English administratese is negligible. I can see that the scribe has written 'Habenda' with a capital letter but I assume this follows a medial stop and I can't make out where the sense begins, apparently much further back in the text - the question I have is whether 'suus' (after 'avus') refers to Walter de Beauchamp, as Elrington suggested, or to Reynold de Braose. If Walter held the land as Berta's husband then William de Braiose can't have been his grandfather, but he was Reynold's.

Peter Stewart

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Peter Stewart
Sent: 06 June 2017 13:01
> Thanks, your eyes are far sharper than mine - pity they didn't opt for higher-definition images.
>
> My knowledge of English administratese is negligible. I can see that the scribe has written 'Habenda' with a capital letter but I assume this follows a medial stop and I can't make out where the sense begins, apparently much further back in the text - the question I have is whether 'suus' (after 'avus') refers to Walter de Beauchamp, as Elrington suggested, or to Reynold de Braose. If Walter held the land as Berta's husband then William de Braiose can't have been his grandfather, but he was Reynold's.
>
> Peter Stewart
>

-------------------------------
As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases rather than sentences).

It's difficult to be certain who 'avus suus' refers back to. The more proximate Walter de Beauchamp seems more likely, but it is not impossible that Reynold de Breause is meant. He isn't so far distant syntactically: the operative part of the fine begins 'Reynold acknowledges and grants to Walter £15 of land in the manor of Tetbury, to wit [lengthy description of land follows], to have and to hold to Walter ...'

Matt Tompkins

[Peter Stewart]

With apologies to Matt Tompkins for sending this reply by mistake to his
email address and not to the newsgroup:

On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

>
> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal
> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the
> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases
> rather than sentences).

Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you
say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily
interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned
into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these
anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to
standardise name forms.

> It's difficult to be certain who 'avus suus' refers back to. The more
> proximate Walter de Beauchamp seems more likely, but it is not
> impossible that Reynold de Breause is meant. He isn't so far distant
> syntactically: the operative part of the fine begins 'Reynold
> acknowledges and grants to Walter £15 of land in the manor of Tetbury,
> to wit [lengthy description of land follows], to have and to hold to
> Walter ...'

In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et

Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m

maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without
mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium
was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of
Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de
Braiose's grandson.

Peter Stewart

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

>>
>> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal
>> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the
>> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases
> >rather than sentences).
>>

From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35
> Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you
say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily
interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned
into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these
anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to
standardise name forms.
>

-----------------------------------------------
This is an abstract or calendar, not a verbatim transcript or word-for-word translation. Preserving idiosyncratic 13th-century punctuation and capitalisation has no place in such publications, where it is normal to punctuate and capitalise the abstract according to modern principles in order to ensure clarity.

Matt Tompkins

[Peter Stewart]

On 7/06/2017 12:23 AM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
>
>>> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal
>>> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the
>>> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases
>>> rather than sentences).
>>>

> From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
> Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35
> > Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you
> say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily
> interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned
> into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these
> anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to
> standardise name forms.
> -----------------------------------------------
> This is an abstract or calendar, not a verbatim transcript or word-for-word translation. Preserving idiosyncratic 13th-century punctuation and capitalisation has no place in such publications, where it is normal to punctuate and capitalise the abstract according to modern principles in order to ensure clarity.

Of course I was making a general observation, not a criticism of
Elrington's practice in a specific book - medial stops have no place in
contemporary English, where the full modern range of punctuation is
available.

Words do, however, so that reducing Walter and his heirs to just Walter
is not good practice on Elrington's part in this specific instance.

The same applies in general to capitalisations, that for much of the
medieval period were used more for emphasis than as a rule for proper
nouns or starting sentences. Italian editors have tended to observe this
over the past century or so, while elsewhere medieval orthography has
more usually been modernised, or anyway standardised. Luckily this too
is changing now - an editor is doing a more faithful job by reproducing
the text as exactly as possible in print, or by reproducing one
preferred manuscript if there are several and giving the variants from
other codices, rather than making a new version full of invisible
variants. Adding editorial commas as a silent gloss on the text can
change the meaning even of Shakespeare, much more so in medieval Latin.
T.E. Lawrence's objection applies - this is mainly a help to people who
don't (or shouldn't) need it in the first place.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before!

A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law.

The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement.

Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer.
It appears that Berta must have died before 1212.

Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then?

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote:
>
> Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before!
>
> A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law.
>
> The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement.
>
> Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer.
> It appears that Berta must have died before 1212.
>
> Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then?

Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works.

First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before
"..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word
longer than "avus".

Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually
"socer", rather than "socerus".

Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that
also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de
Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of
this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de
Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The
1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of
William de Braiose.

If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to
daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold
property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after
her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225.
If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either
have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir
if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried
widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with
rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine?

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works.

You may be right but I should make a few more comments.

> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before
> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word
> longer than "avus".

I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus.

> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually
> "socer", rather than "socerus".

I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated.

> Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine

They are about completely different subjects. I meant where they agree is about Walter being married to Berta.

that
> also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de
> Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of
> this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de
> Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The
> 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of
> William de Braiose.

"ut liberum maritagium" in my understanding automatically limits rights to heirs of that marriage.

> If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to
> daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold
> property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after
> her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225.
> If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either
> have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir
> if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried
> widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with
> rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine?

That's the point of the fine. It's not a confirmation of the maritagium. It's a new grant of land to Walter by Reginald to replace that which Walter was still holding irregularly in Reginald's view. In return Walter quitclaims the half of the manor of Tetbury which he had been given at the time of the marriage.

Note that Walter would not have returned the maritagium to William de Braose because he was exiled and died years before. It is only now that Reginald has regained rights to the family lands that he is able to claim back the half-manor of Tetbury. In this fine he is inducing Walter to give up his claim peaceably by giving him a much less significant grant as a sweetener, thus avoiding the cost of a lengthy court battle, like the one he was having with his nephew John, still being sorted out in the 1227 fine.

It is annoying that this whole subject could be solved if only the ....us word was clear! Although I could not make any sense of the situation if it was "avus." If Walter had been Berta's son there would be no excuse for taking this maritagium away. It would be his by right.

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:
>> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works.
> You may be right but I should make a few more comments.
>
>> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before
>> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word
>> longer than "avus".
> I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus.
>
>> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually
>> "socer", rather than "socerus".
> I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated.

Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the
likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in
the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such
a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any
records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say
about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*?

>> Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine
> They are about completely different subjects. I meant where they agree is about Walter being married to Berta.
>
> that
>> also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de
>> Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of
>> this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de
>> Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The
>> 1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of
>> William de Braiose.
> "ut liberum maritagium" in my understanding automatically limits rights to heirs of that marriage.

Then why would this need to be spelled out in the 1227 fine from Sele
priory?

>> If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to
>> daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold
>> property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after
>> her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225.
>> If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either
>> have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir
>> if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried
>> widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with
>> rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine?
> That's the point of the fine. It's not a confirmation of the maritagium. It's a new grant of land to Walter by Reginald to replace that which Walter was still holding irregularly in Reginald's view. In return Walter quitclaims the half of the manor of Tetbury which he had been given at the time of the marriage.
>
> Note that Walter would not have returned the maritagium to William de Braose because he was exiled and died years before. It is only now that Reginald has regained rights to the family lands that he is able to claim back the half-manor of Tetbury.

But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to
retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she
must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles
was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would
Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over
Gloucestershire land?

> In this fine he is inducing Walter to give up his claim peaceably by giving him a much less significant grant as a sweetener, thus avoiding the cost of a lengthy court battle, like the one he was having with his nephew John, still being sorted out in the 1227 fine.
>
> It is annoying that this whole subject could be solved if only the ....us word was clear! Although I could not make any sense of the situation if it was "avus." If Walter had been Berta's son there would be no excuse for taking this maritagium away. It would be his by right.

But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away. I dare say
landholdings were fairly often consolidated between relatives, for any
number of different reasons and with a wide range of apparent value in
compensation.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:37:44 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 7/06/2017 8:35 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:
> >> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works.
> > You may be right but I should make a few more comments.
> >
> >> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before
> >> "..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word
> >> longer than "avus".
> > I disagree here. There is clearly more room used than is needed for avus. Can you see the tail of the "s" near the front of the line. Compare with the tail of the first S on suus.
> >
> >> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually
> >> "socer", rather than "socerus".
> > I agree here. But I looked for a word which fitted "s.....us" which fitted the sense of the fine. Socerus is a known form, although I have only found socer before. It may be abbreviated.
>
> Well, it is very common to contract "er" to a mark, but I don't see the
> likelihood of "soc'us" if the expanded form would be an aberration in
> the first place. Was "socerus" really common enough to be useful in such
> a conjecture? I don't rummage much in 13th-century documents (or any
> records from England for that matter). What do Latham and Howlett say
> about this form in *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*?

A correspondent has kindly pointed out that this is now available for limited search online, here:

http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/publications/online

However, the variant form "socerus" is not included in DMLBS, while "socrus" appears only with the meaning "mother-in-law" (both are noted for father-in-law in Lewis & Short, but that is hardly to the purpose).

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

More comments

I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the space or the sense.

"But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to
retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she
must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles
was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would
Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over
Gloucestershire land? "

Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period. Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page - http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221.

"But if it was being exchanged it wasn't being taken away."

Exchange is when holdings are equal. Walter was being given £15 of land as a reward for giving up half of Tetbury, which was valued at £50 in 1086 and by 1221 must have been worth considerably more. This is what the process of fines is about. An incentive is given to avoid having to go to court. Reginald was probably already in possession of Tetbury but was getting Walter to acknowledge he no longer had a claim.

Walter and Reginald were not "friends". Walter supported Louis of France in the war of 1216 in opposition to the Marchers who, with Reginald as one of their main leaders, seized Walter's Beauchamp lands in Worcestershire. Walter would not be giving up Braose lands at that time voluntarily.

There's a lot more behind these two fines than appears at a quick reading.

Doug Thompson

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:29:21 AM UTC-6, Doug Thompson wrote:

< I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit either the < space or the sense.

Assuming that Elrington saw the original fine when he made his transcript, the word "auus" [avus] would fit both the space and the sense.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies to Doug Thompson for sending this to his email address instead
of the newsgroup - I've done this twice in the space of a single thread,
I'm afraid, caused by undue haste while concentrating on a different
line of research.

On 8/06/2017 1:29 AM, Doug Thompson wrote:

> More comments
>
> I'm not sold on "socerus" but as I said "avus" does not seem to fit
> either the space or the sense.
>
> "But surely not all of Berta's family were exiled or powerless to
> retrieve her maritagium in the interval from ca 1210, or whenever she
> must have died in order for Walter to remarry in 1212. Her brother Giles
> was bishop of Hereford from September 1200 to November 1215. Would
> Walter have thumbed his nose at a neighbouring prelate over
> Gloucestershire land? "
>
> Yes! No Braose was in any position to exert rights in that period.
> Giles was in exile as well until he returned in 1213. This page -
> http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page15.htm - will give you a
> perspective on why nobody could sort out Tetbury until 1221.

The page doesn't explain the circumstance of Braiose powerlessness to
1221 - Giles appears to have been in a strong position in
Gloucestershire by the autumn of 1215 at the latest.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

You appear to have missed the last paragraph Peter.

" But only days after meeting the king to conclude the settlement, Giles fell ill and died in Gloucester. It is difficult not to suspect foul play. The de Braose lands reverted back to the crown."

I welcome discussion by personal email too! But this forum leaves a record for others to read.

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his
brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that,
between them, they could even chew gum at the same time.

From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that
Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a
part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when
they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have
left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried
to Joan de Mortimer from 1212?

Peter Stewart

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

On 7/06/2017 11:27 AM, Doug Thompson wrote:
>

> Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before!
>
> A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law.
>
> The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement.
>
> Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer.
> It appears that Berta must have died before 1212.
>
> Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then?

From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: 07 June 2017 03:16
> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this quite works.
>

> First, it doesn't appear to me that there could be enough letters before
"..us suus" on the fourth line from the bottom to read this as a word
longer than "avus".
>

> Secondly, the Latin nominative singular for father-in-law is usually
"socer", rather than "socerus".
>

> Thirdly, this fine doesn't exactly agree with the Sele priory fine that

also included Hugh de Mortimer, a known son-in-law of William de
Braiose. In that case, according to the extract quoted at the start of
this thread, "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de
Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse". The
1221 fine does not limit Walter's rights to his heirs by a daughter of
William de Braiose.
>

If Hugh de Mortimer and Walter de Beauchamp were both married to
daughters of William de Braiose, then why would Walter still hold
property that came to him as Berta's maritagium around two decades after
her death? He had married Joan de Mortimer in 1212 and she died in 1225.
If Berta had died before 1212, wouldn't her maritagium normally either
have reverted to her own family if she was childless or gone to her heir
if she was the mother of offspring by Walter? Was it usual a remarried
widower still to be holding the maritagium of a deceased wife, with
rights reserved to his own heirs without limit to hers, as in the 1221 fine?
>

> Peter Stewart
>
-------------------------------
It would be possible, and not at all unusual, for a remarried widower to be still holding his deceased former wife's maritagium in three situations. First, if a child had been born to the marriage, in which case the curtesy of England would give him the right to remain in possession of her property until his own death (tenure in maritagium did not alter this). Second, if, as was common, the grant in maritagium had been made to the wife AND her spouse - in which case the husband would be holding after her death in his own right. Third, if the grant in maritagium had been made to the husband alone and his heirs (which did happen, though it became less common after c1200) - in this case the husband's ownership is absolute.

I think Doug is right that this fine looks like the compromise of a dispute over the entire manor. Walter de Beauchamp has claimed it all (justly, it seems to me) but has been forced to accept a division with Reynold de Braose. However I also think the faded word in the original document is far more likely to be 'avus' than 'socerus', both as a better fit for the faded word and because 'socerus' was a very rarely used term (if it was in use at all). If the word is avus then Walter is claiming as Bertha's son, not her widower - which is presumably why the action which the fine terminated was one of mort d'ancestor. (Though if the original grant in maritagium had been made to William de Beauchamp alone, Walter would be claiming as William's son.)

Matt Tompkins

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35
<snip>
> In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et

Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m

maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without
mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium
was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of
Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de
Braiose's grandson.
>
> Peter Stewart
>

-------------------------------
Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life.

It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars.

Matt Tompkins

[Peter Stewart]

On 8/06/2017 8:55 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> From: Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>

> Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35
> <snip>

>> In this case Elrington has left out an important point - for "Habenda et

> Tenenda ip[s]i Walt[er]o et h[ere]dib[us] suis ut lib[eru]m

> maritag[ium]" he has given "To hold to Walter in free marriage", without
> mention of his heirs. If the tenancy held as the result of a maritagium
> was heritable from Walter alone, without specifying a limit to heirs of
> Berta, then I suppose he was more probably her son and William de
> Braiose's grandson.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
> -------------------------------
> Elrington didn't leave out anything important. A gift to A 'and his heirs' did not create an entail - that is, it did not limit the category of people who could inherit, and it did not it make the land inalienable. It was in fact just a gift in fee simple, freely alienable and able to be inherited by anyone who was the heir (which just states the obvious - if someone is not the heir then by definition he cannot inherit). The original purpose of the phrase was to show that the gift was not just a grant for the donee's life.
>
> It is common to omit the phrase from abstracts and calendars.

It's interesting how different (not to say odd) ways of treating sources
have become common in different scholarly traditions - for instance, in
Russia where there is precious little source material from before the
14th century they tend to take every word (indeed every letter) in
late-medieval and early-modern chronicles as a national treasure. In
England, overwhelmed with administrivia from the 13th century owards,
they blithely omit phrases that initiates are expected to take for
granted while yet feeling a need to standardise names for readers who
may be thrown by variety.

Peter Stewart

[Cristopher Nash]

Lamentably late (other pressures having intervened) & well out of order but just to round out the background to Doug's appetizer —

> Fifteen years ago (Sep 2002!) we had a discussion on this list about the Braose Beauchamp marriage between Bertha and William or Walter. I joined in with Chris Phillips, Cris Nash and John Ravilious trying to come to a considered conclusion, which I think we did - That Bertha was a daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St Valery and that she married William Beauchamp (d 1197).

— a year later this posting followed the sequence he had in mind.

Cheers all.

Cris

> From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: Parentage of Matilda de Braose (St Valery)
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:47:13 +0100
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>
> “Peter Stewart wrote:
> > Perhaps you have different William de Beauchamps in mind - I think
> > Bertha de Braose was the wife of William I, lord of Elmley, who was
> > sheriff of Worcester from 1155, sheriff of Gloucester in 1156-7,
> > sheriff of Hereford 1160-67, sheriff of Warwick 1158-9, and reportedly
> > died in 1170.
> >
> > His heir, Bertha's son William II (died in Normandy 1197), married
> > first a sister (name unknown) of Odo, the tenant of Salwarpe, and
> > secondly a lady named Amicia, the mother of his sons. The elder of
> > these was William III, known as 'Wilekin' (died 1211/12) who married
> > Joan (daughter of Thomas, seigneur of Saint-Valery & Adela of
> > Ponthieu) and was succeeded in Emley by his brother Walter.
> >
> > But please note, this information is not from a close study of the
> > family, just from old notes citing, amongst other secondary works,
> > Emma Mason's 'Legends of the Beauchamps' Ancestors: The Use of
> > Baronial Propaganda in Medieval England', _Journal of Medieval
> > History_ 10 (1984), and her edition of _The Beauchamp Cartulary
> > Charters 1100-1268_ (London, 1980). I am not able to check either of
> > these at present.
>
> Yes - Mason does give this identification (I had seen only the Beauchamp
> Cartulary, and will make a note to look at the other reference you mention
> too). She has been followed in this by Keats-Rohan, in Domesday Descendants.
>
> Essentially, the document identifying Bertha - an early 14th-century
> inquisition - does place her as the wife of the William who died in 1197,
> but dates the marriage to the mid 12th century. This is one of the reasons
> for which Mason moves it back a generation. But it seems clear that the land
> involved would not have come to the Braoses before the 1190s, so that the
> inquisition has overestimated the lapse of time.
>
> The other reason for moving Bertha a generation earlier was an undated
> charter for Westwood Priory, given by an Anicia, lady of Salwarp, who is the
> widow of one William de Beauchamp and the mother of another. Elsewhere she
> is called Amice de Mumby. Mason identified her as the widow of William de
> Beauchamp who d. 1197, presumably in the absence of another candidate.
>
> It appears she could perhaps be the same as Amice, the wife of Eudo de Mumby (d. c. 1197). The only suggestion I can make is that the Amice/Anice of the charter was the widow of a different William de Beauchamp, perhaps before
> marrying Eudo (whose son and heir was a minor in 1197).
>
> There's more discussion of this in a thread entitled "Early Beauchamps (was:
> Second update to DP and DD amendments)" in July this year.
>
> Chris Phillips”

[Peter Stewart]

On 8/06/2017 8:49 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
>
> -------------------------------
> It would be possible, and not at all unusual, for a remarried widower to be still holding his deceased former wife's maritagium in three situations. First, if a child had been born to the marriage, in which case the curtesy of England would give him the right to remain in possession of her property until his own death (tenure in maritagium did not alter this). Second, if, as was common, the grant in maritagium had been made to the wife AND her spouse - in which case the husband would be holding after her death in his own right. Third, if the grant in maritagium had been made to the husband alone and his heirs (which did happen, though it became less common after c1200) - in this case the husband's ownership is absolute.

I don't see how the distinction between the second and third of these
situations can be understood in a particular case where the convention
is for an abstract simply to leave out the phrase "and his heirs". If
the husband's heirs may not be the same as the wife's, this would seem
an important point, much less in a highly litigious feudal society such
as England from the 13th century onwards.

The 1227 Sele priory abstract mentions Walter's and Hugh's heirs by
daughters of William de Braiose; the 1221 fine itself mentions Walter
and his heirs without reference to descent from a daughter of William,
while Elrington's abstract mentions only Walter in this context.

I should have thought the potential implication of the specific wording
about heirs might be considered important enough to include a few extra
words in an abstract. But then the preference for abstracts in English
over editions of the original Latin text, and the old habit of wallowing
in antiquarian jargon, are some of the reasons that impelled me towards
other fields of research.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

According to the Latin Assistant dictionary, avus means forefather or ancestor in addition to grandfather. Was it sometimes used in this broader sense in this era?

Chris Phillips quoted the text of the 1305 inquisition that Emma Mason sites as evidence that Berta Braose married William (I) de Beauchamp (_Cal. of Inq. Misc._, i, no. 1971). See
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-09/1033304740

The part with the conflicting evidence about who Berta married is this:

William de Breouse, long since deceased, who once held the manor of
Tettebury together with the said rent and other tenements belonging to the
said manor of the king in chief by service of a knight's fee, gave the said
rent a hundred and sixty years and more past to William de Bello Campo,
great grandfather of the said earl, and Berta, daughter of the said William
de Brewose, in free marriage.

"A hundred and sixty years and more past" would be 1145 or earlier. That would be consistent with a marriage of Berta to William (I) de Beauchamp. "Great-grandfather of the said earl" would be consistent with a marriage to William (II) de Beauchamp.

Emma Mason concluded that the error was in the "great-grandfather" statement, not in the "160 years and more past" statement.

Mason cites the following sources for her statement that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp and mother of his sons William and Walter was named Amice (not Berta):

Doris May Stenton, ed., _Pleas before the King or his Justices 1198-1212_, i, Seldon Soc., lxvii, 268, c.2864
F. Palgrave, ed., _Rotuli Curiae Regis_, 2 vols., Rec. Comm., 1835, i, 257, ii, 20
_Curia Regis Rolls_, i, 212
I. J. Sanders, _English Baronies_ (Oxford, 1960), 75
B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v.

HathiTrust has the book edited by Stenton, but with limited search only:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007128484
Google has it with snip view, but I haven't succeeded in getting the cited document (p. 268) to appear in a snip:
https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ
The following searches show two views of p. 283:
https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Amicia+quondam+Bello
https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&q=Amicia+uxor+Willelmi+de+Bello
And the following search shows the index entry for the cited document:
https://books.google.com/books?id=OPcyAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=c.2864

The citations to _Rotuli Curiae Regis_ are here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028541376;view=1up;seq=405
(mentions a lawsuit by Amic' de Bello Campo against Will' de Brause, but does not further identify Amicia)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028541368;view=1up;seq=54
(I don't see relevant info on this page.)

The citation to _Curia Regis Rolls_ is on HathiTrust but it just states that the heir of William is within age and in the custody of William de Braose:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112203984580;view=1up;seq=234
The same info from another roll is transcribed on p. 246:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112203984580;view=1up;seq=268

Sanders (p. 75-76) does not mention the wives of William (I) and William (II) de Beauchamp in his section about Salwarpe.

Has the text of B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. been presented somewhere in this thread?

[Peter Stewart]

On 9/06/2017 11:56 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> According to the Latin Assistant dictionary, avus means forefather or ancestor in addition to grandfather. Was it sometimes used in this broader sense in this era?
>
> Chris Phillips quoted the text of the 1305 inquisition that Emma Mason sites as evidence that Berta Braose married William (I) de Beauchamp (_Cal. of Inq. Misc._, i, no. 1971). See
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-09/1033304740
>
> The part with the conflicting evidence about who Berta married is this:
>
> William de Breouse, long since deceased, who once held the manor of
> Tettebury together with the said rent and other tenements belonging to the
> said manor of the king in chief by service of a knight's fee, gave the said
> rent a hundred and sixty years and more past to William de Bello Campo,
> great grandfather of the said earl, and Berta, daughter of the said William
> de Brewose, in free marriage.
>
> "A hundred and sixty years and more past" would be 1145 or earlier. That would be consistent with a marriage of Berta to William (I) de Beauchamp. "Great-grandfather of the said earl" would be consistent with a marriage to William (II) de Beauchamp.
>
> Emma Mason concluded that the error was in the "great-grandfather" statement, not in the "160 years and more past" statement.

As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows
this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently
thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of
Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows
> this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently
> thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of
> Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241.
>
> Peter Stewart

True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters!

This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp.

Peter, when you write

"Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his
brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that,
between them, they could even chew gum at the same time.

From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that
Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a
part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when
they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have
left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried
to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? "

I wonder if you have a knowledge of the situation in England and Wales at that time?
It was not a place where Giles and Reynold could carry out business, chewing gum or not!
They were at war with the King, marching about with armies in Wales. Land disputes were only settled by force of arms. The niceties of legal documentation came later.

I value Matthew Tompkins' inputs which may explain some of the legal points in the fines.

It looks to me now as if the 1227 fine could allow "Walter and his heirs by the daughter.." to mean the heirs through his mother, excluding heirs through his father's sons by a later wife.
This ties in with Berta marrying William II de Beauchamp, the conclusion we came to 15 years ago!!

But I'm not sure it quite "feels" right even now. There is a problem that the documents have glaring errors - the 160 years - and the naming of Joanna's husband as William in the Worcester Annals - and some ambiguities as in the 1227 fine's reading of Walter's heirs by Berta.

We may have to keep a slightly open mind yet.

Doug Thompson

[Peter Stewart]

On 9/06/2017 11:34 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:
>> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows
>> this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently
>> thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of
>> Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters!
>
> This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp.
>
> Peter, when you write
>
> "Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his
> brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that,
> between them, they could even chew gum at the same time.
>
> From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that
> Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a
> part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when
> they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have
> left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried
> to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? "
>
> I wonder if you have a knowledge of the situation in England and Wales at that time?
> It was not a place where Giles and Reynold could carry out business, chewing gum or not!
> They were at war with the King, marching about with armies in Wales. Land disputes were only settled by force of arms. The niceties of legal documentation came later.

The timeframe in question is 1213 to 1221. I doubt that Berta's
maritagium was being retained by Walter against the interests of the
Braiose brothers and their nephew John through those eight years before
an effort was made either to force the issue or to reach an agreement.
Troubled times are not the same as absolute country-wide mayhem. In
troubled times, especially after the dramas afflicting the Braiose
family, every resource may be called upon to ensure support, including a
lapsed maritagium for instance that could provide for a new one to help
co-opt another potential in-law. I just don't buy the conjectural
explanation that the Braioses let it hang until 1221.

> I value Matthew Tompkins' inputs which may explain some of the legal points in the fines.
>
> It looks to me now as if the 1227 fine could allow "Walter and his heirs by the daughter.." to mean the heirs through his mother, excluding heirs through his father's sons by a later wife.

In my second post of this thread, on 31 May, I wrote: 'How certain is it
that the original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the
daughters of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp
himself to be the son rather than husband of Berta?"

A delayed response is better than none, but I don't know why it should
take 10 days to acknowledge an obvious possibility from the incomplete
evidence available.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says?

While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says?
>
> While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason.

A reader kindly sent me a link to the transcription of B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1336043/f569.item

It does appear to imply that an Avicia domina de Salewarp was the mother of William de Bello Campo. In the next entry, is Walter confirming the same gift?

[Peter Stewart]

On 10/06/2017 5:10 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says?
>
> While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason.

I haven't seen this source, the cartulary of Westwood priory in
Worcestershire, that as far as I know is unpublished. If Mason was
relying on an implication, she thought it a clear one - although she
didn't quote the relevant text, she stated (on page xxii): "Her
antecedents are unknown, but from the cartulary of Westwood priory it is
clear that Amice (or Avice), 'lady of Salwarpe' was the mother of
William( II)'s heir and other children."

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 10/06/2017 5:10 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says?
>
> While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason.

I posted too soon - see
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol2/pp148-151, citing Cott.
MS. Vespas, E. ix. f. 2d:

"Alicia, the lady of Salwarpe, gave the nuns half a yardland in Boicot
for the good estate of her own soul and of her children and for the
souls of her husband William Beauchamp and her son William, the grant
being confirmed by Walter Beauchamp".

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, this is the "praeceptum" of her son that Avicia referred to in her
charter.

Apologies for the cross-purpose of my earlier posts, Jan, I didn't
receive your much more helpful one until after these were sent.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 9/06/2017 11:34 PM, Doug Thompson wrote:

>> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows
>> this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently
>> thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of
>> Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters!
>
> This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp.

It looks to me as if Emma Mason has muddled the wives in early
generations of the Beauchamp family.

The chronology of the Walter de Beauchamp in the 1221 and 1227 records
is puzzling. He was evidently underage in 1212 when Roger de Mortimer
paid 3,000 marks in order to marry his daughter Joan to Walter.
According to the 1227 fine, Berta de Braiose had been given her
maritagium by her father William, who was deprived and exiled in 1208.
So if Berta was married by 1208 to the same Walter de Beauchamp who
later married Joan de Mortimer, he could only have been at most ca 16
years old at the time. Then Berta would have to have died by 1212, and
her brother Reynold would have known for certain in 1221 if she had left
any offspring living whose existence would justify Walter in holding on
to her maritagium.

But all this seems implausible to me. Assuming her brother Giles was
aged 30 or more on becoming bishop of Hereford in 1200, he was born by
1170. Her sister Lauretta was married to Robert de Beaumont, earl of
Leicester, in or after 1196 so was presumably born ca 1180. Their mother
Maud de Saint-Valery evidently had her children from the mid- to late-
1160s onwards. But the Walter de Beauchamp who was lord of Elmley in
1221 was not born until ca 1192. This makes him far more probably a son
of Berta de Braiose than her cougar-husband by 1208.

This raises the question of whether Emma Mason has identified the right
William de Beauchamp as the son of Amicia/Avicia of Salwarpe.

I don't have time to pursue this at present. Does anyone know when
Avicia's tenant Osbert fitz Walter de Broc was living?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 10/06/2017 9:46 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2017 6:25 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Yes, this is the "praeceptum" of her son that Avicia referred to in
> her charter.
>
> Apologies for the cross-purpose of my earlier posts, Jan, I didn't
> receive your much more helpful one until after these were sent.

I beg your pardon, Jan - I didn't read it or your post carefully enough.
The next entry is a charter of Walter, not of Avicia's son William
(assuming that Richard Graves made an accurate transcription and didn't
wrongly supply the name of one or other 'W'). So this appears to be a
later confirmation by Avicia's grandson Walter, presumably the man in
the 1221 and 1227 records we have been discussing.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2010-08/1282869484

In 2010, John concluded from these Westwood charters that Avicia was the wife of William (I) de Beauchamp.

[Peter Stewart]

On 10/06/2017 1:13 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2010-08/1282869484
>
> In 2010, John concluded from these Westwood charters that Avicia was the wife of William (I) de Beauchamp.
>

Emma Mason held that Amicia who was the widow of a William de Beauchamp
in 1200 was the same as Avicia who called herself lady of Salwarpe in
the Westwood propry charter (most probably correct), and that her
deceased husband must have been William II (died 1197) rather than
William I (died 1170). I don't know why she didn't discuss this further
regarding the possibility that the two William de Beauchamps (I and II,
father and son) could have had different widows (Avicia/Amicia and Berta
respectively) both living in 1200, that leads towards the conclusion
reached by John Ravilious.

Peter Stewart

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 03:08:03 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The evidence is as follows:
>
> In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:-
> 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam.
> Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400.
>
> The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:-
> 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.
> Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418.
>
> The fine of 3,000 marks was still outstanding in 1229, after the death of Hugh de Mortimer:-
> 8 July 1229, For Ralph de Mortimer. To the barons of the Exchequer. The king has pardoned to Ralph de Mortimer, brother and heir of Hugh de Mortimer, for his faithful service, up to £500 of the £511 2s. 4d. that is exacted from the same Ralph at the Exchequer for the same Hugh of the fine which Roger de Mortimer, father of Hugh and Ralph, made with King John, the king’s father, for having custody of Walter de Beauchamp.
> Calendar of Fine Rolls 13 Henry III, No. 255.
>
> I can't imagine Roger de Mortimer paying (or owing) such a huge amount of money if Walter de Beauchamp did not marry his daughter.
>
> Regards,
>
> John

A further piece of evidence that Walter de Beauchamp was married to Joan, daughter of Roger de Mortimer appears in the will of his son William de Beauchamp, dated January 1268/9 ... "for my soul and the souls of Isabella my wife and Isabella de Mortuo Mari and all the faithful dead" ...
J. W. Willis Bund, Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, Part 1: 1268-1273, Worcestershire Historical Society (1898), 7-8.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xYFKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA8

Isabella de Mortuo Mari was no doubt William's maternal grandmother, Isabel de Ferrières, wife of Roger de Mortimer. She died before 29 April 1252 (CP, ix, 273).

See also:
http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00320043

Regards,

John