Re: Giles de Braose

WJhonson@xxxxxxx wrote:
If Giles was enfeoffed in Wickhambreaux in 55H3, and was "...put in full seizen of it..." and a "certain fine was levied between William and Giles"

Would this not imply that Giles was of full age at this time?

Thanks
Will Johnson



Hi Will and others

I now understand what you are getting at.

Yes this fine of 55H3, would imply that Giles was of full age at this date [2]. Thus suggesting he was born around 34H3 and as such William married Giles' mother Agnes Moels [the second wife] sometime prior to this date 34H3.

ON THE OTHER HAND hand we have the reference JUST 1/1050 52-53 Hen III Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas. which also refers to a fine but of 38H3 - 40H3 between William de Breuse and Aline Moulton [the first wife]. The actual statement says

"Afterwards the aforesaid Richard (de Breuse) appears and withdraws that exception and says that whatever he has in the aforesaid manor he holds by the gift of William de Breuse and a certain Aline formerly his wife, whose right and marriage portion it was, and he says that the same William and Alina, after that lord, that is between the 38th year of the reign of the now lord king and the 40th following [1253/4 – 1255/6] they came before the justices of the lord King’s Bench and acknowledged it to be the right of the same Richard by a Fine made there between them on condition that the same William and Alina undertook for themselves and their heirs to warrant. "

So in this instance we have a third party stating that William and Aline [the first wife] were still married between 38H3 and 40H3 contradicting what is said in the fine of 55H3.


There are some serious questions to be asked concerning this matter, which could have major ramifications on accepted genealogies.


Regards


Paul



[2]In addition to the previous reference I posted, a summary of the actual contents of this fine was recited by Elwes, thus confirming its existence.


"In 55 Hen III [1271], there is a final concord from the Feet of Fines for Kent, No. 1149 between Giles de Brewuse Plt. And William de Brewse Impediant, concerning this manor, which proves that William de Brewose had granted it to Giles, he having the manor of the gift of Maltida Lungespey as well of the manor of Lukedale, to hold to him and his heirs of the said William and his heirs, rendering yearly to during William 300 pounds sterling for all services due to William, and doing services due to the chief lords of that fee, power to distrain being reserved. After William's death, Giles and the heirs of his body shall be quit from payment of the said 300 pounds, and shall hold by the service of one pair of gilt spurs, or 6d. each Easter. If Giles die s.p., the premises to remain to right heirs of William*.
On the dorse of this is a note that Henry Lasey and Margaret his wife put in their claim. This last note shows that ligation as to this manor, had been going on all this time, as Margaret, wife of Henry de Lasey, Earl of Lincoln, was the only daughter and heir of the above Maltida by her first husband William Lungespey, and in the Assize Roll for Kent in this year, 55 Hen III, 5?, m70, John Gyffard and Maltida his wife claim against William de Breuse this very manor. William makes the same plea as formerly that Maltida granted him the manor, and refers to a fine levied in the octaves of the Purification [ 2 March 1259] 43 Hen. III between him and Maltida of this same manor which she thereby gave to him. John Gyffard replied as formerly that she was underaged and in the custody of William, and the fine was falsely levied. The judgement was postponed.
D.G.C. Elwes. P39-41"
.