Discussion:
BREWES - COKESEY Connection
(too old to reply)
Paul Mackenzie
2004-04-30 04:27:15 UTC
Permalink
My previous post contained lots of formatting errors due to the
transmission, so here it goes again without any formatting.


Hi All

BREWES - COKESEY Connection

I post the following tree for your consideration.

1. Peter de BREWES , Kt b1272 d1312 4th son of William de Brewes d1290, of
Tettebury, GLOUCESTER,
Manyingford WILTSHIRE, Wyvethorp, YORK, Boseham, Chesworth, Seggewick,
Biddleton, SUSSEX,
Bokham, Bromley, Effingham, Imworth SURREY m Agnes Husee

1.1. Thomas de BREWES , Kt b1301d1361 son & hr of Peter m Beatrix
1.1.1 John de BREWES b1339 d1367 sp son & hr of Thomas
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395 next br. & hr.
1.1.2.1 Thomas de BREWES b 1395 d 1395
1.1.2.2 Joan de BREWES b 1392 d 1395
1.1.3 Peter de BREWES b aft1352 d bef 1395 next br.

1.2 John de BREWES, Kt b 1301-1312 d1342 yr. son of Peter d1312 of Lee nr.
Reigate,
Geyburton, Scothorn, Misyn, Herlaston, Upton, Kesceby LINCOLN Wauton,
Hernesheved
SURREY m Margaret Trehampton d1354 (2) Norman de Swynford
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 liv 1376 son & hr. Declared an Idiot m (1)
Anne.m(2) Joan Cornubia
1.2.1.1 Margaret de BREWES b 1353 dau and hr m (1) John Pontrell (2) Peter
Nuthill
1.2.2 George de BREWES b1330-42 d1418 sp son of John & ultimate hr. of
Thomas d1395 m Elizabeth
who m (2) Thomas Slyfield
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.3.1 Isabella SEYNPERE m Walter Cokesey kt
1.2.3.1.1 Walter COKESEY
1.2.3.1.1 Hugh COKESEY b1403 d1445-46 hr of George de Brewes

1.3 Mary de BREWES, COUNTESS of NORFOLK m (1) Ralph Cobham (2) Thomas
Brotherton

1.4 Peter de BREWES of Wiston (?)

The BREWES - COKESEY Connection is well known (see VCH Surrey pages 83, 336
concerning the descent of Bramley, and Little Bookham),
but it was not entirely clear who was John de BREWES (1.2)

I had collected a substantial amount of references on (1.2.1) John de BREWES
and his supposedly brother (1.2.2) George de BREWES
but was unable to reconcile the descent of the two sets of properties of
Peter (1) and John (1.2) until recently. I was searching the A2A database
and came across some relevant material. It seems that the properties of Lee
and Gay Burton held by John de BREWES (1.2) descended first to
John de BREWES (1.2.1) [CIPM 9:89 CIPM 10:189 CIPM 10:318 CC
1354-1360:472,473 etc] and then to Margaret de BREWES (1.2.1.1) [See
below].
The next mention of Lee and Gay Burton is in 1441 concerning the holdings
of the Cokesley family [See below], presumably Hugh COKESEY . In that same
reference it refers to the properties of Wyvethorp and others, which
descended to Hugh COKESEY from George de BREWES (see VCH Surrey pages
83,336). It thus seems that Hugh COKESEY was the heir of both George de
BREWES and Margaret de BREWES, who probably died before 1395 without an
heir.

Any comments or further material would be welcome.

Paul Mackenzie
Queensland
Australia

REFERENCES

1370
DEEDS Lincolnshire
Quitclaim - date: 12 Sep 1370
Between George Brewes, son of John Brewes, knight, of the one part,
and John Pontrell, and Margaret his wife, of the other part; of all his
rights
in the Manors of Lee and Gateburton, with appurts. in Stowe Beate Marie,
Kesteby, Upton, Marton, and Schosthorn next Nettylham, Lincs.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/4/7/13 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS

1372?
LEGAL PAPERS- Copy of Plea Roll of the King's Bench
Margaret widow of John Pontrell, knight, sought by assize of
Mort D'Ancestor v. Goscelin de Feriby, Vicar of Gainsborough Church,
John de Aseby, Simon Curtays and William de Waterton of Gainsborough;
re the Manors of Gate Burton and Lee (Lincs.), and 3 messuages, 7 bovates
and 12 acres of meadow, 16 marks, and 14s. 8d. rent, in Stowe beate Marie,
Upton, Kesseby and Scotthorn next Netilham, which John de Malton, chaplain,
and John de Wyngfeld gave John de Breouse and Margar his wife in fee tail,
and were inherited by Margaret widow of John Pontrell, Margaret recovered
seisin.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/8/1 - -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS


1383
Ecclesiastical Papers
Miscellaneous
Letters Patent of Henry Bishop of Norwich - date: 15 Feb 1383
Certifying that an Inquisition had been summoned in a cause between
Peter Nuthill and Margaret his wife (daughter of John Brewes and Anne his
wife),
and George Brewes; about Margaret's inheritance; the jurors swore that
Margaret,
born 30 years earlier was legitimate.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/11/4/6/3 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS

1441
Coldicote in Alderminister co. Worcs, detached
Cokesey family property in Alderminister co. Worcs. and elsewhere
Manors of Cooksey in Upton Warren, Witley, Caldewell, Timberhanger in
Bromsgrove
and Goldicote in Alderminister and Droitwich co. Worcs.; the manor of Lea
and property in Lee,
Gate Burton and Scothern co. Lincon, the manors of Bidlington in Bramber co.
Sussey,
of Bokeham Pava Little Bookham co. Surrey, of Wyverthorp co. York,
of Eyton in Dovedale Eaton Dovedale in Doverridge co. Derby and
property in Walton-on-Trent co. Derby; manors of Hunningham and Willey co.
Warw.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. U269/T196/8
WARWICKSHIRE AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Greville, Cranfield and Sackville families
Paul Mackenzie
2004-04-30 07:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Hi All, especially Doug Richardson

I have been trying to document the descent of the manors Lee, Upton,
Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe Lincoln and others for some time, with a view
to establishing the identity of John de Brewes d1342 (1.2). Recently, I
searched the A2A database which lead to the following tree.

Previously, I did find some references on these properties, but
unfortunately I lost the references. I thought the relevant names was Gray
or Darcy. I just searched the GEN-MED archives and there appeared to be some
discussion by Doug on this question in 2002 I think. As is the case, I was
just putting my files in order and found on the back of a loose page the
following cryptic note by myself "Philippus Darcy Knt d 22 Ric held amongst
others Lee, Upton, Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe, his wife Gray?". Where I
got that reference I don't know.

This brings into question the veracity of my tree. Whilst George de Brewes
1.2.2 was the son of a John de Brewes, a brother of Thomas de Brewes 1.1 [
see SAC 53:144;54:146,], this John may not have been the John de Brewes of
Lee etc.

Any help in this matter would be appreciated.

Regards
Paul Mackenzie

PS If anyone wants a copy of the original transmission properly formatted,
please email me and I will forwarded it to you.
Post by Paul Mackenzie
My previous post contained lots of formatting errors due to the
transmission, so here it goes again without any formatting.
Hi All
BREWES - COKESEY Connection
I post the following tree for your consideration.
1. Peter de BREWES , Kt b1272 d1312 4th son of William de Brewes d1290, of
Tettebury, GLOUCESTER,
Manyingford WILTSHIRE, Wyvethorp, YORK, Boseham, Chesworth, Seggewick,
Biddleton, SUSSEX,
Bokham, Bromley, Effingham, Imworth SURREY m Agnes Husee
1.1. Thomas de BREWES , Kt b1301d1361 son & hr of Peter m Beatrix
1.1.1 John de BREWES b1339 d1367 sp son & hr of Thomas
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395 next br. & hr.
1.1.2.1 Thomas de BREWES b 1395 d 1395
1.1.2.2 Joan de BREWES b 1392 d 1395
1.1.3 Peter de BREWES b aft1352 d bef 1395 next br.
1.2 John de BREWES, Kt b 1301-1312 d1342 yr. son of Peter d1312 of Lee nr.
Reigate,
Geyburton, Scothorn, Misyn, Herlaston, Upton, Kesceby LINCOLN Wauton,
Hernesheved
SURREY m Margaret Trehampton d1354 (2) Norman de Swynford
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 liv 1376 son & hr. Declared an Idiot m (1)
Anne.m(2) Joan Cornubia
1.2.1.1 Margaret de BREWES b 1353 dau and hr m (1) John Pontrell (2) Peter
Nuthill
1.2.2 George de BREWES b1330-42 d1418 sp son of John & ultimate hr. of
Thomas d1395 m Elizabeth
who m (2) Thomas Slyfield
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.3.1 Isabella SEYNPERE m Walter Cokesey kt
1.2.3.1.1 Walter COKESEY
1.2.3.1.1 Hugh COKESEY b1403 d1445-46 hr of George de Brewes
1.3 Mary de BREWES, COUNTESS of NORFOLK m (1) Ralph Cobham (2) Thomas
Brotherton
1.4 Peter de BREWES of Wiston (?)
The BREWES - COKESEY Connection is well known (see VCH Surrey pages 83, 336
concerning the descent of Bramley, and Little Bookham),
but it was not entirely clear who was John de BREWES (1.2)
I had collected a substantial amount of references on (1.2.1) John de BREWES
and his supposedly brother (1.2.2) George de BREWES
but was unable to reconcile the descent of the two sets of properties of
Peter (1) and John (1.2) until recently. I was searching the A2A database
and came across some relevant material. It seems that the properties of Lee
and Gay Burton held by John de BREWES (1.2) descended first to
John de BREWES (1.2.1) [CIPM 9:89 CIPM 10:189 CIPM 10:318 CC
1354-1360:472,473 etc] and then to Margaret de BREWES (1.2.1.1) [See
below].
The next mention of Lee and Gay Burton is in 1441 concerning the holdings
of the Cokesley family [See below], presumably Hugh COKESEY . In that sam
e
Post by Paul Mackenzie
reference it refers to the properties of Wyvethorp and others, which
descended to Hugh COKESEY from George de BREWES (see VCH Surrey pages
83,336). It thus seems that Hugh COKESEY was the heir of both George de
BREWES and Margaret de BREWES, who probably died before 1395 without an
heir.
Any comments or further material would be welcome.
Paul Mackenzie
Queensland
Australia
REFERENCES
1370
DEEDS Lincolnshire
Quitclaim - date: 12 Sep 1370
Between George Brewes, son of John Brewes, knight, of the one part,
and John Pontrell, and Margaret his wife, of the other part; of all his
rights
in the Manors of Lee and Gateburton, with appurts. in Stowe Beate Marie,
Kesteby, Upton, Marton, and Schosthorn next Nettylham, Lincs.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/4/7/13 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1372?
LEGAL PAPERS- Copy of Plea Roll of the King's Bench
Margaret widow of John Pontrell, knight, sought by assize of
Mort D'Ancestor v. Goscelin de Feriby, Vicar of Gainsborough Church,
John de Aseby, Simon Curtays and William de Waterton of Gainsborough;
re the Manors of Gate Burton and Lee (Lincs.), and 3 messuages, 7 bovates
and 12 acres of meadow, 16 marks, and 14s. 8d. rent, in Stowe beate Marie,
Upton, Kesseby and Scotthorn next Netilham, which John de Malton, chaplain,
and John de Wyngfeld gave John de Breouse and Margar his wife in fee tail,
and were inherited by Margaret widow of John Pontrell, Margaret recovered
seisin.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/8/1 - -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1383
Ecclesiastical Papers
Miscellaneous
Letters Patent of Henry Bishop of Norwich - date: 15 Feb 1383
Certifying that an Inquisition had been summoned in a cause between
Peter Nuthill and Margaret his wife (daughter of John Brewes and Anne his
wife),
and George Brewes; about Margaret's inheritance; the jurors swore that
Margaret,
born 30 years earlier was legitimate.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/11/4/6/3 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1441
Coldicote in Alderminister co. Worcs, detached
Cokesey family property in Alderminister co. Worcs. and elsewhere
Manors of Cooksey in Upton Warren, Witley, Caldewell, Timberhanger in
Bromsgrove
and Goldicote in Alderminister and Droitwich co. Worcs.; the manor of Lea
and property in Lee,
Gate Burton and Scothern co. Lincon, the manors of Bidlington in Bramber co.
Sussey,
of Bokeham Pava Little Bookham co. Surrey, of Wyverthorp co. York,
of Eyton in Dovedale Eaton Dovedale in Doverridge co. Derby and
property in Walton-on-Trent co. Derby; manors of Hunningham and Willey co.
Warw.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. U269/T196/8
WARWICKSHIRE AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Greville, Cranfield and Sackville families
Douglas Richardson
2004-04-30 16:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Paul ~

I believe this entire wing of the Brewes-Breuse family died out and
has no modern descendants. Is there a particular reason why you are
interested in establishing the identity of John de Brewes (died 1342)?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Hi All, especially Doug Richardson
I have been trying to document the descent of the manors Lee, Upton,
Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe Lincoln and others for some time, with a view
to establishing the identity of John de Brewes d1342 (1.2). Recently, I
searched the A2A database which lead to the following tree.
Previously, I did find some references on these properties, but
unfortunately I lost the references. I thought the relevant names was Gray
or Darcy. I just searched the GEN-MED archives and there appeared to be some
discussion by Doug on this question in 2002 I think. As is the case, I was
just putting my files in order and found on the back of a loose page the
following cryptic note by myself "Philippus Darcy Knt d 22 Ric held amongst
others Lee, Upton, Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe, his wife Gray?". Where I
got that reference I don't know.
This brings into question the veracity of my tree. Whilst George de Brewes
1.2.2 was the son of a John de Brewes, a brother of Thomas de Brewes 1.1 [
see SAC 53:144;54:146,], this John may not have been the John de Brewes of
Lee etc.
Any help in this matter would be appreciated.
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
PS If anyone wants a copy of the original transmission properly formatted,
please email me and I will forwarded it to you.
Paul Mackenzie
2004-05-01 05:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Doug, and all:

My main interest lies in trying to establish the parentage of
Peter de Brewes d1377 of Wiston. Over the years I have
collected a substantial amount of material on the de Brewes
in the 1300's. I have a lot of loose ends and am trying to
attach them to the appropriate point in the de Brewes
tree to eliminate them and see where this leads me.

One result of this tree, if is it correct, is that it adds substantial
evidence to
the parentage of Mary de Brewes, Countess of Norfolk. Namely she
was the daughter of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury. A Summary of the
facts is as follows:

A. In an I.p.m on Oliver de Ingham in 1347 it is stated that Mary,
Countess of Norfolk had a brother named Thomas de Brewes, Knt.
CIPM 08:374,377

B. In 1347 Mary, Countess of Norfolk was granted the wardship of
the lands of John de Brewes d 1342 (1) until his heir John de Brewes (2)
reached lawful age. CF 1347:40

C. In an inquiry in 1357 the lands of John de Brewes d 1342 were taken
into the kings hands. In that inquiry it was stated that certain lands of
his were at one time or another in the possession of Mary,
Countess of Norfolk, and a Thomas de Brewes, Knt.
CIPM 10:318-320

D. In 1357, John Cobham, the son of Mary, was granted the
wardships of the lands of Lee, Gay Burton, Scothern in Lincoln
which belonged to John de Brewes (2) who was declared an idiot.
CC1354-1360:421,422

E. In a letters patent in 1363 it was stated that Thomas de Brewes
, now deceased, had been previously granted the wardships of
the lands in Wauton in Surrey which belonged to the idiot John
de Brewes (2) and the manors were still in the hands of Beatrix
his wife as executrix of his will. CP 1361-1364:416

Summarising, it is thus clear that the Thomas de Brewes referred
to in point E, was Thomas de Brewes of Tetbury. It is also clear
that Mary de Brewes, Countess of Norfolk and Thomas de Brewes
Knt of Tetbury were jointly granted the wardships of the lands of the
idiot John de Brewes (points B,C,D and E). Furthermore Mary had a
brother named Thomas de Brewes who was a knight (point A).
I think we can thus safely conclude that Mary de Brewes, Countess of
Norfolk and Thomas de Brewes knt of Tetbury, were siblings and
were the children of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury.

Furthermore, this seems to suggest that Mary, and Thomas were
close blood relations with John de Brewes of Lee. In my earlier post
I included a number of references which seem to suggest that Thomas
de Brewes d1361 and John de Brewes d 1342 were indeed brothers
as Hugh Cokesey subsequently held both the properties of Thomas
and John. Hugh Cokesy being the great grandson of Agnes de Brewes,
who was the sister of George de Brewes, who in turn was the son of
John de Brewes, the brother of Thomas de Brewes d1361 of Tetbury.

However, as I mentioned apparently Philip Darcy c 1397 also held
the properties of John de Brewes of Lee, which confuses the issue.
Perhaps he was an overlord or vice versa. Any comments or
information on Philip Darcy you may have would be welcome.

In all of my material on the de Brewes there is no specific mention of the
relationship between Mary, Thomas, and John, and that of Peter de Brewes
of Wiston. I have only been able to conclude that Peter was either a younger
brother of Thomas and John or a more distant relation. Moreover, I have not
found any primary evidence substanting the traditional view that he was the
son of
William, brother of Peter de Brewes d1312 of Tetbury.


Best Regards

Paul Mackenzie
Queensland
Australia

Paul
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Paul ~
I believe this entire wing of the Brewes-Breuse family died out and
has no modern descendants. Is there a particular reason why you are
interested in establishing the identity of John de Brewes (died 1342)?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Hi All, especially Doug Richardson
I have been trying to document the descent of the manors Lee, Upton,
Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe Lincoln and others for some time, with a view
to establishing the identity of John de Brewes d1342 (1.2). Recently, I
searched the A2A database which lead to the following tree.
Previously, I did find some references on these properties, but
unfortunately I lost the references. I thought the relevant names was Gray
or Darcy. I just searched the GEN-MED archives and there appeared to be some
discussion by Doug on this question in 2002 I think. As is the case, I was
just putting my files in order and found on the back of a loose page the
following cryptic note by myself "Philippus Darcy Knt d 22 Ric held amongst
others Lee, Upton, Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe, his wife Gray?".
Where I
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Paul Mackenzie
got that reference I don't know.
This brings into question the veracity of my tree. Whilst George de Brewes
1.2.2 was the son of a John de Brewes, a brother of Thomas de Brewes 1.1 [
see SAC 53:144;54:146,], this John may not have been the John de Brewes of
Lee etc.
Any help in this matter would be appreciated.
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
PS If anyone wants a copy of the original transmission properly formatted,
please email me and I will forwarded it to you.
Rosie Bevan
2004-05-02 13:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Dear Paul

I'm able to answer one or two of your queries but you seem to have already done the groundwork so apologies if I'm duplicating anything.

Gayburton, or Gate Burton, and Lea were part of the Trehampton holding of two knights' fees of the honour of Richmond and they descended with Margaret Trehampton, wife of John Brewes d.1342. [EYC 5 p. 242. The Honour of Richmond].

After Margaret's death in 1354, six inquisitions concerning her holdings in Lincolnshire were held [CIPM X no. 211]. They record that she was holding the manors of Lea, Gate Burton, Scothern and Herlaxton being the sister and heir of John son of Ralph Trehampton, and she married Sir John Brewes by whom she had a son, John, an idiot. After Sir John's death she married Sir Norman de Swynford who took advantage of John's idiocy and sold land, expelled tenants and committed waste in all of the manors except Harlaxton which was occupied by Edmund de Swynford.

In 1357 there was an inquisition to ascertain what had been in Sir John Brewes' possession on account of the escheator taking in his son's lands because his idiocy. [CIPM X 390] records that both Thomas de Brewes, Mary Countess of Norfolk and John, earl of Warenne, from whom the lands were held, periodically held his manor of Wauton and tenements in Reigate in Surrey after the escheator took his lands on account of his idiocy.

The information you have recorded about Philip Darcy comes from his IPM for Lincolnshire. [CIPM XVII, no.1151]. He appears to have been a tenant of these manors, holding,
"Knayth. The manor held of the bishop of Lincoln as of his manor of Stowe by knight's service. It includes 6 bovates of land in Upton and Kesceby, held of the prioress of Hevynges by knight's service, 3 bovates of land in Gaytburton, held of Walter Cokesay, knight, lord of Lee by suit of court only, and a tenement in Gaynesburgh, held of John Lescrop, knight, by service of 6d. rent yearly."

The record you give from the Centre for Kentish Studies: Sackville Manuscripts ref. U269/T196/8 is interesting for the fact it includes the manor of Bidlington in Bramber, Sussex. In 1332 an original settlement by William de Braose determining that Bidlington and two other manors would pass to his children by Mary de Ros - Richard, Peter and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies, and then to his right heirs.

PRO C 143/214/7
"Thomas de Brewosa to have confirmation of a settlement of the manors of Cheseworth, West Grinstead, and Bidlington (in Bramber) on William de Brewosa for life, with successive remainders to Richard his son, Peter brother (son in writ) of the said Richard, and Margaret sister of the said Peter, and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to the right heirs of the said William.
5 EDWARD III"

Bidlington was included in the IPM for Thomas de Brewes d. 1395 [CIPM XVII no. 592] when it was stated to be held of Thomas, earl Marshall of the barony of Bramber by knight's service. As his two children, Thomas and Joan, had died as infants, Thomas' heir was his niece, Elizabeth, daughter of Beatrice Brewes and William Say, wife of Sir William Heron. Elizabeth was dead in 1399 without issue. The Say lands passed to her aunts, but there is no mention of the Brewes inheritance in her IPM..

With the exception of Lea, Gate Burton, Scothern and Herlaxton; Bidlington and the rest of the Brewes patrimony such as Tetbury, Manningford Bruce then passed to George Brewes d. 1418 as the next right heir. The absence of the Trehampton properties amongst his holdings might reflect the 1370 quitclaim which you showed in your post. Presumably this had been done for a financial consideration, as being a younger son the prospect of inheriting the Brewes estate at that time must have been very remote, though it would seem he changed his mind later on and tried to take possession of the properties by claiming Margaret de Brewes was illegitimate. The appearance of the Trehampton manors in the possession of the Cokesays indicates Trehampton descent.

As for the identity of Peter de Brewes of Wiston, the nearest clue I've seen is found in the habendum clause of the following grant which implies he was the brother of Sir Thomas d.1361, because the remainder is to Peter, son of Sir Thomas Brewes, presumably his nephew who died without issue before 1395.

"West Sussex Record Office: Additional manuscripts, Catalogue 18
Reference: Add Mss 13,013
Copy, inspeximus, 25 February 1398, of letters patent, 1 November 1357
Creation dates: pre-1672
Scope and Content Granting, in consideration of 1,000 marks, of which 850 have been paid to the Prioress and Sisters of the Priory of Derteford Dartford, co. Kent and the residue remitted, to Peter de Brewose and Joan his wife, the manors of Wistneston Wiston, Asshehurrst Ashurst, Chiltington, 'Sloughtre', Hyen Heene, and Yryingham Erringham, alienated to the Crown by Roger Bavent'le fitz'
The original grant is 'with remainder to the heirs of the body of Peter, failing which to Peter, son of Thomas de Brewose, 'chevaler', and the heirs male of his body, failing which to the right heirs of the first-named Peter.'

The inspeximus confirms the grant to John, son of the first-named Peter."

John would appear to have married firstly Margery Nerford (1360-1417)[CP IX :471], dau and heir of John de Nerford d.1363. She was placed in the wardship of Peter de Brewes who married her to his son. This must have come about through Peter's wife's connections, as her mother, Joan (Foliot) (Percy) had been married secondly to John Mautravers whose son's wife was widow of John de Nerford, great-uncle of Margery. Margery sued for a divorce in 1378 on the grounds that she was married against her will as a child. That year Sir Robert Howard, John her husband, and others abducted her so she was granted protection until 1381 pending her divorce. Afterwards she took a vow of chastity and lived in London. Incidentally, the name Howard cropping up in this context may be significant with the Howard arms appearing in the windows at Wiston which you commented on in a previous post. John's widow was Margaret, daughter of Thomas Poynings, Lord St John [CIPM XXII no.760] and she appears !
to have remarried a Wickham and died in 1448.

On balance, your construction of the pedigree looks reasonable in the light of various descents. If you have any further questions I'll try and answer them.

Cheers

Rosie

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Mackenzie" <***@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: BREWES - COKESEY Connection
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Hi All, especially Doug Richardson
I have been trying to document the descent of the manors Lee, Upton,
Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe Lincoln and others for some time, with a view
to establishing the identity of John de Brewes d1342 (1.2). Recently, I
searched the A2A database which lead to the following tree.
Previously, I did find some references on these properties, but
unfortunately I lost the references. I thought the relevant names was Gray
or Darcy. I just searched the GEN-MED archives and there appeared to be some
discussion by Doug on this question in 2002 I think. As is the case, I was
just putting my files in order and found on the back of a loose page the
following cryptic note by myself "Philippus Darcy Knt d 22 Ric held amongst
others Lee, Upton, Gayburton, Kesteby, and Stowe, his wife Gray?". Where I
got that reference I don't know.
This brings into question the veracity of my tree. Whilst George de Brewes
1.2.2 was the son of a John de Brewes, a brother of Thomas de Brewes 1.1 [
see SAC 53:144;54:146,], this John may not have been the John de Brewes of
Lee etc.
Any help in this matter would be appreciated.
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
PS If anyone wants a copy of the original transmission properly formatted,
please email me and I will forwarded it to you.
Post by Paul Mackenzie
My previous post contained lots of formatting errors due to the
transmission, so here it goes again without any formatting.
Hi All
BREWES - COKESEY Connection
I post the following tree for your consideration.
1. Peter de BREWES , Kt b1272 d1312 4th son of William de Brewes d1290, of
Tettebury, GLOUCESTER,
Manyingford WILTSHIRE, Wyvethorp, YORK, Boseham, Chesworth, Seggewick,
Biddleton, SUSSEX,
Bokham, Bromley, Effingham, Imworth SURREY m Agnes Husee
1.1. Thomas de BREWES , Kt b1301d1361 son & hr of Peter m Beatrix
1.1.1 John de BREWES b1339 d1367 sp son & hr of Thomas
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395 next br. & hr.
1.1.2.1 Thomas de BREWES b 1395 d 1395
1.1.2.2 Joan de BREWES b 1392 d 1395
1.1.3 Peter de BREWES b aft1352 d bef 1395 next br.
1.2 John de BREWES, Kt b 1301-1312 d1342 yr. son of Peter d1312 of Lee nr.
Reigate,
Geyburton, Scothorn, Misyn, Herlaston, Upton, Kesceby LINCOLN Wauton,
Hernesheved
SURREY m Margaret Trehampton d1354 (2) Norman de Swynford
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 liv 1376 son & hr. Declared an Idiot m (1)
Anne.m(2) Joan Cornubia
1.2.1.1 Margaret de BREWES b 1353 dau and hr m (1) John Pontrell (2) Peter
Nuthill
1.2.2 George de BREWES b1330-42 d1418 sp son of John & ultimate hr. of
Thomas d1395 m Elizabeth
who m (2) Thomas Slyfield
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.3.1 Isabella SEYNPERE m Walter Cokesey kt
1.2.3.1.1 Walter COKESEY
1.2.3.1.1 Hugh COKESEY b1403 d1445-46 hr of George de Brewes
1.3 Mary de BREWES, COUNTESS of NORFOLK m (1) Ralph Cobham (2) Thomas
Brotherton
1.4 Peter de BREWES of Wiston (?)
The BREWES - COKESEY Connection is well known (see VCH Surrey pages 83,
336
Post by Paul Mackenzie
concerning the descent of Bramley, and Little Bookham),
but it was not entirely clear who was John de BREWES (1.2)
I had collected a substantial amount of references on (1.2.1) John de
BREWES
Post by Paul Mackenzie
and his supposedly brother (1.2.2) George de BREWES
but was unable to reconcile the descent of the two sets of properties of
Peter (1) and John (1.2) until recently. I was searching the A2A database
and came across some relevant material. It seems that the properties of
Lee
Post by Paul Mackenzie
and Gay Burton held by John de BREWES (1.2) descended first to
John de BREWES (1.2.1) [CIPM 9:89 CIPM 10:189 CIPM 10:318 CC
1354-1360:472,473 etc] and then to Margaret de BREWES (1.2.1.1) [See
below].
The next mention of Lee and Gay Burton is in 1441 concerning the holdings
of the Cokesley family [See below], presumably Hugh COKESEY . In that sam
e
Post by Paul Mackenzie
reference it refers to the properties of Wyvethorp and others, which
descended to Hugh COKESEY from George de BREWES (see VCH Surrey pages
83,336). It thus seems that Hugh COKESEY was the heir of both George de
BREWES and Margaret de BREWES, who probably died before 1395 without an
heir.
Any comments or further material would be welcome.
Paul Mackenzie
Queensland
Australia
REFERENCES
1370
DEEDS Lincolnshire
Quitclaim - date: 12 Sep 1370
Between George Brewes, son of John Brewes, knight, of the one part,
and John Pontrell, and Margaret his wife, of the other part; of all his
rights
in the Manors of Lee and Gateburton, with appurts. in Stowe Beate Marie,
Kesteby, Upton, Marton, and Schosthorn next Nettylham, Lincs.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/4/7/13 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1372?
LEGAL PAPERS- Copy of Plea Roll of the King's Bench
Margaret widow of John Pontrell, knight, sought by assize of
Mort D'Ancestor v. Goscelin de Feriby, Vicar of Gainsborough Church,
John de Aseby, Simon Curtays and William de Waterton of Gainsborough;
re the Manors of Gate Burton and Lee (Lincs.), and 3 messuages, 7 bovates
and 12 acres of meadow, 16 marks, and 14s. 8d. rent, in Stowe beate
Marie,
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Upton, Kesseby and Scotthorn next Netilham, which John de Malton,
chaplain,
Post by Paul Mackenzie
and John de Wyngfeld gave John de Breouse and Margar his wife in fee tail,
and were inherited by Margaret widow of John Pontrell, Margaret recovered
seisin.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/8/1 - -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1383
Ecclesiastical Papers
Miscellaneous
Letters Patent of Henry Bishop of Norwich - date: 15 Feb 1383
Certifying that an Inquisition had been summoned in a cause between
Peter Nuthill and Margaret his wife (daughter of John Brewes and Anne his
wife),
and George Brewes; about Margaret's inheritance; the jurors swore that
Margaret,
born 30 years earlier was legitimate.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/11/4/6/3 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1441
Coldicote in Alderminister co. Worcs, detached
Cokesey family property in Alderminister co. Worcs. and elsewhere
Manors of Cooksey in Upton Warren, Witley, Caldewell, Timberhanger in
Bromsgrove
and Goldicote in Alderminister and Droitwich co. Worcs.; the manor of Lea
and property in Lee,
Gate Burton and Scothern co. Lincon, the manors of Bidlington in Bramber
co.
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Sussey,
of Bokeham Pava Little Bookham co. Surrey, of Wyverthorp co. York,
of Eyton in Dovedale Eaton Dovedale in Doverridge co. Derby and
property in Walton-on-Trent co. Derby; manors of Hunningham and Willey co.
Warw.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. U269/T196/8
WARWICKSHIRE AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Greville, Cranfield and Sackville families
Paul Mackenzie
2004-05-03 04:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Rosie and others

An excellent summary!!!!!.

I originally thought Margaret de Brewes who married
(1) John Pontrell and (2) Peter Nuthill must have died
without an heir because the inheritance of John de BREWES
(1.2) d1342 estates passed to the Cokeseys. A subsequent
search of the A2A database has revealed that this was not the
case. How these estates passed to the Cokeseys I am
not sure. Any help would be appreciated.
Also has anyone heard of the family SYKKYLBRYCE

An updated summarised tree follows

1. Peter de BREWES , Kt b1272 d1312 4th son of
William de Brewes d1290, of Tettebury, GLOUCESTER,
Manyingford WILTSHIRE, Wyvethorp, YORK, Boseham,
Chesworth, Seggewick, Biddleton, SUSSEX, Bokham,
Bromley, Effingham, Imworth SURREY m Agnes Husee
children:
1.1 Thomas de BREWES, b1301 d1361
1.2 John de BREWES, b1301-1312
1.3 Mary de BREWES b1301-1312,
COUNTESS of NORFOLK m (1) Ralph Cobham
(2) Thomas Brotherton
1.4 Peter de BREWES b1301-1312 of Wiston (?)


1.1. Thomas de BREWES , Kt b1301d1361
son & hr of Peter (1) m Beatrix
children
1.1.1 John de BREWES b1339 d1367 sp son & hr of Thomas
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395 next br. & hr.
1.1.3 Peter de BREWES b aft1352 d bef 1395 next br.


1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395
children
1.1.2.1 Thomas de BREWES b 1395 d 1395
1.1.2.2 Joan de BREWES b 1392 d 1395

1.2 John de BREWES, Kt b 1301-1312 d1342
yr. son of Peter (1) d1312 of Lee nr. Reigate,
Geyburton, Scothorn, Misyn, Herlaston, Upton,
Kesceby LINCOLN Wauton, Hernesheved
SURREY m Margaret Trehampton d1354
(2) Norman de Swynford
children:
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 d c1370
1.2.2 George de BREWES b1330-42 d1418
sp son of John & ultimate hr. of Thomas d1395 (1.1.2)
m Elizabeth who m (2) Thomas Slyfield
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere



1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 d c1370 son & hr.
of John (1.2) Declared an Idiot m (1) Anne dau of
Sir Thomas Sauddeforth knt, .m(2) Joan Cornubia
children:
1.2.1.1 Margaret de BREWES b 1353
dau and hr m (1) John Pontrell (2) Peter Nuthill
children:
1.2.1.1.1 Thomas NUTELL m Elizabeth dau of
John Reednes
children:
1.2.1.1.1.1 Antone NUTELL dsp
1.2.1.1.1.2 Elizabeth NUTTELL hr to Antone,
m Laurence SYKKYLBRYCE
children:
1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Annice SYKKYLBRYCE
1.2.1.1.1.2.2 Isabell SYKKYLBRYCE

1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.3.1 Isabella SEYNPERE dau of Agnes de
BREWES (1.2.3) m Walter Cokesey kt
children:
1.2.3.1.1 Walter COKESEY
children:
1.2.3.1.1 Hugh COKESEY b1403 d1445-46
hr of George de Brewes (1.2.2)

REFERENCES

1370
DEEDS Lincolnshire
Quitclaim - date: 12 Sep 1370
Between George Brewes, son of John Brewes, knight,
of the one part, and John Pontrell, and Margaret his wife,
of the other part; of all his rights in the Manors of Lee
and Gateburton, with appurts. in Stowe Beate Marie,
Kesteby, Upton, Marton, and Schosthorn next Nettylham,
Lincs.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/4/7/13 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS

1372?
LEGAL PAPERS- Copy of Plea Roll of the King's Bench
Margaret widow of John Pontrell, knight, sought by assize of
Mort D'Ancestor v. Goscelin de Feriby, Vicar of
Gainsborough Church, John de Aseby, Simon Curtays and
William de Waterton of Gainsborough; re the Manors of
Gate Burton and Lee (Lincs.), and 3 messuages, 7 bovates
and 12 acres of meadow, 16 marks, and 14s. 8d. rent, in
Stowe beate Marie,Upton, Kesseby and Scotthorn next
Netilham, which John de Malton, chaplain, and John de Wyngfeld
gave John de Breouse and Margar his wife in fee tail, and were
inherited by Margaret widow of John Pontrell, Margaret recovered
seisin.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/8/1 - -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS

1383
Ecclesiastical Papers
Miscellaneous
Letters Patent of Henry Bishop of Norwich - date: 15 Feb 1383
Certifying that an Inquisition had been summoned in a cause between
Peter Nuthill and Margaret his wife (daughter of John Brewes and
Anne his wife), and George Brewes; about Margaret's inheritance;
the jurors swore that Margaret, born 30 years earlier was legitimate.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/11/4/6/3 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS

1441
Coldicote in Alderminister co. Worcs, detached
Cokesey family property in Alderminister co. Worcs. and
elsewhere Manors of Cooksey in Upton Warren, Witley,
Caldewell, Timberhanger in Bromsgrove and Goldicote in
Alderminister and Droitwich co. Worcs.; the manor of Lea
and property in Lee, Gate Burton and Scothern co. Lincon,
the manors of Bidlington in Bramber co. Sussey, of Bokeham
Pava Little Bookham co. Surrey, of Wyverthorp co. York,
of Eyton in Dovedale Eaton Dovedale in Doverridge co. Derby
and property in Walton-on-Trent co. Derby; manors of
Hunningham and Willey co. Warw.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. U269/T196/8
WARWICKSHIRE AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Greville, Cranfield and Sackville families

FAMILY PAPERS
Genealogical papers
Memorandum
That John Brewye, son and heir of John Brewye, knight,
took unto his wife, Anned daugther of Sir Thomas Sauddeforth
, knight, the same John and Anne had issue---Margaret;
the same Margaret married Pers Notell, and had issue
---Thomas Nuttell; the same Thomas married Elizabeth,
daughter of John Reednes, and had issue---Antone and
Elizabeth; the said Antone died without issue, and the said
Elizabeth is heir to Antone, the said Elizabeth married
Laurence Sykkylbryce, and had issue Annice and Isabell.
Endorsed; the predigree of Nutell. 136.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref SpSt/6/3
Spence-Stanhope family of Horsforth,
West Riding of Yorkshire
minnman
2004-05-03 18:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Several visitation pedigrees list Alice, wife of Ralph St. Owen, as
daughter of Pier de Brewes. Paul Davis has done extensive work
regarding the identity of this Pier de Brewes, and there is a good
possibility that he is the same as Peter of Tetbury. However, at last
word conclusive proof is still lacking.

mn
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Hi Rosie and others
An excellent summary!!!!!.
I originally thought Margaret de Brewes who married
(1) John Pontrell and (2) Peter Nuthill must have died
without an heir because the inheritance of John de BREWES
(1.2) d1342 estates passed to the Cokeseys. A subsequent
search of the A2A database has revealed that this was not the
case. How these estates passed to the Cokeseys I am
not sure. Any help would be appreciated.
Also has anyone heard of the family SYKKYLBRYCE
An updated summarised tree follows
1. Peter de BREWES , Kt b1272 d1312 4th son of
William de Brewes d1290, of Tettebury, GLOUCESTER,
Manyingford WILTSHIRE, Wyvethorp, YORK, Boseham,
Chesworth, Seggewick, Biddleton, SUSSEX, Bokham,
Bromley, Effingham, Imworth SURREY m Agnes Husee
1.1 Thomas de BREWES, b1301 d1361
1.2 John de BREWES, b1301-1312
1.3 Mary de BREWES b1301-1312,
COUNTESS of NORFOLK m (1) Ralph Cobham
(2) Thomas Brotherton
1.4 Peter de BREWES b1301-1312 of Wiston (?)
1.1. Thomas de BREWES , Kt b1301d1361
son & hr of Peter (1) m Beatrix
children
1.1.1 John de BREWES b1339 d1367 sp son & hr of Thomas
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395 next br. & hr.
1.1.3 Peter de BREWES b aft1352 d bef 1395 next br.
1.1.2 Thomas de BREWES, Kt b1352 d1395
children
1.1.2.1 Thomas de BREWES b 1395 d 1395
1.1.2.2 Joan de BREWES b 1392 d 1395
1.2 John de BREWES, Kt b 1301-1312 d1342
yr. son of Peter (1) d1312 of Lee nr. Reigate,
Geyburton, Scothorn, Misyn, Herlaston, Upton,
Kesceby LINCOLN Wauton, Hernesheved
SURREY m Margaret Trehampton d1354
(2) Norman de Swynford
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 d c1370
1.2.2 George de BREWES b1330-42 d1418
sp son of John & ultimate hr. of Thomas d1395 (1.1.2)
m Elizabeth who m (2) Thomas Slyfield
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.1 John de BREWES b1329 d c1370 son & hr.
of John (1.2) Declared an Idiot m (1) Anne dau of
Sir Thomas Sauddeforth knt, .m(2) Joan Cornubia
1.2.1.1 Margaret de BREWES b 1353
dau and hr m (1) John Pontrell (2) Peter Nuthill
1.2.1.1.1 Thomas NUTELL m Elizabeth dau of
John Reednes
1.2.1.1.1.1 Antone NUTELL dsp
1.2.1.1.1.2 Elizabeth NUTTELL hr to Antone,
m Laurence SYKKYLBRYCE
1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Annice SYKKYLBRYCE
1.2.1.1.1.2.2 Isabell SYKKYLBRYCE
1.2.3 Agnes de BREWES d bef 1418 m Uriah Seynpere
1.2.3.1 Isabella SEYNPERE dau of Agnes de
BREWES (1.2.3) m Walter Cokesey kt
1.2.3.1.1 Walter COKESEY
1.2.3.1.1 Hugh COKESEY b1403 d1445-46
hr of George de Brewes (1.2.2)
REFERENCES
1370
DEEDS Lincolnshire
Quitclaim - date: 12 Sep 1370
Between George Brewes, son of John Brewes, knight,
of the one part, and John Pontrell, and Margaret his wife,
of the other part; of all his rights in the Manors of Lee
and Gateburton, with appurts. in Stowe Beate Marie,
Kesteby, Upton, Marton, and Schosthorn next Nettylham,
Lincs.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/4/7/13 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1372?
LEGAL PAPERS- Copy of Plea Roll of the King's Bench
Margaret widow of John Pontrell, knight, sought by assize of
Mort D'Ancestor v. Goscelin de Feriby, Vicar of
Gainsborough Church, John de Aseby, Simon Curtays and
William de Waterton of Gainsborough; re the Manors of
Gate Burton and Lee (Lincs.), and 3 messuages, 7 bovates
and 12 acres of meadow, 16 marks, and 14s. 8d. rent, in
Stowe beate Marie,Upton, Kesseby and Scotthorn next
Netilham, which John de Malton, chaplain, and John de Wyngfeld
gave John de Breouse and Margar his wife in fee tail, and were
inherited by Margaret widow of John Pontrell, Margaret recovered
seisin.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/8/1 - -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1383
Ecclesiastical Papers
Miscellaneous
Letters Patent of Henry Bishop of Norwich - date: 15 Feb 1383
Certifying that an Inquisition had been summoned in a cause between
Peter Nuthill and Margaret his wife (daughter of John Brewes and
Anne his wife), and George Brewes; about Margaret's inheritance;
the jurors swore that Margaret, born 30 years earlier was legitimate.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. SpSt/11/4/6/3 -
THE SPENCER STANHOPE MANUSCRIPTS
1441
Coldicote in Alderminister co. Worcs, detached
Cokesey family property in Alderminister co. Worcs. and
elsewhere Manors of Cooksey in Upton Warren, Witley,
Caldewell, Timberhanger in Bromsgrove and Goldicote in
Alderminister and Droitwich co. Worcs.; the manor of Lea
and property in Lee, Gate Burton and Scothern co. Lincon,
the manors of Bidlington in Bramber co. Sussey, of Bokeham
Pava Little Bookham co. Surrey, of Wyverthorp co. York,
of Eyton in Dovedale Eaton Dovedale in Doverridge co. Derby
and property in Walton-on-Trent co. Derby; manors of
Hunningham and Willey co. Warw.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref. U269/T196/8
WARWICKSHIRE AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Greville, Cranfield and Sackville families
FAMILY PAPERS
Genealogical papers
Memorandum
That John Brewye, son and heir of John Brewye, knight,
took unto his wife, Anned daugther of Sir Thomas Sauddeforth
, knight, the same John and Anne had issue---Margaret;
the same Margaret married Pers Notell, and had issue
---Thomas Nuttell; the same Thomas married Elizabeth,
daughter of John Reednes, and had issue---Antone and
Elizabeth; the said Antone died without issue, and the said
Elizabeth is heir to Antone, the said Elizabeth married
Laurence Sykkylbryce, and had issue Annice and Isabell.
Endorsed; the predigree of Nutell. 136.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search
ref SpSt/6/3
Spence-Stanhope family of Horsforth,
West Riding of Yorkshire
Paul K Davis
2004-05-06 05:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I do believe Alice, wife of Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter
Braose "of Tetbury". The evidence is substantial, but not absolutely
conclusive. Since I last corresponded on this issue, I have found two
further pieces of supporting evidence, but feel I need to continue my
search before publishing.
Alice has a great many living descendants, including ourselves and Queen
Elizabeth. Immigrant Davenport and the historian Edward Gibbon were also
her descendants.
[Original Message]
Date: 5/3/2004 11:05:07 AM
Subject: Re: BREWES - NUTHILL- COKESEY Connection
Several visitation pedigrees list Alice, wife of Ralph St. Owen, as
daughter of Pier de Brewes. Paul Davis has done extensive work
regarding the identity of this Pier de Brewes, and there is a good
possibility that he is the same as Peter of Tetbury. However, at last
word conclusive proof is still lacking.
mn
Robert O'Connor
2017-09-16 05:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul K Davis
Yes, I do believe Alice, wife of Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter
Braose "of Tetbury". The evidence is substantial, but not absolutely
conclusive. Since I last corresponded on this issue, I have found two
further pieces of supporting evidence, but feel I need to continue my
search before publishing.
Alice has a great many living descendants, including ourselves and Queen
Elizabeth. Immigrant Davenport and the historian Edward Gibbon were also
her descendants.
It is a while since this topic was discussed, but I wonder if any further proof has been found to confirm that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury (Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2)?

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

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

Comments welcome

Robert O'Connor
w***@gmail.com
2017-09-16 10:44:51 UTC
Permalink
I think this is a new piece of evidence:

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

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


William Acton
Robert O'Connor
2017-09-16 22:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975)
“[327] E/840      1316
She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated)
(French) (MS defective)”
According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291).
William Acton
Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated.

The presumed line of descent is thus:

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

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

Is this a correct interpretation?

Robert O'Connor
Douglas Richardson
2017-09-17 03:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert O'Connor
Post by w***@gmail.com
'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975)
“[327] E/840      1316
She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated)
(French) (MS defective)”
According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291).
William Acton
Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated.
/
/
/
John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”.
If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros).
Is this a correct interpretation?
Robert O'Connor
No. Mr.
Douglas Richardson
2017-09-17 03:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert O'Connor
Is this a correct interpretation?
Robert O'Connor
Dear Robert ~

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Robert O'Connor
2017-09-17 05:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Douglas, I appreciate your comments on the Visitation pedigrees and on Paul Davis' thesis.

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

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

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

Is this a correct interpretation?

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

Robert O'Connor
Doug Thompson
2017-09-20 19:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert O'Connor
Thanks Douglas, I appreciate your comments on the Visitation pedigrees and on Paul Davis' thesis.
However you didn't comment on the petition kindly quoted by William Acton above.
This is a new piece of evidence that Paul Davis wasn't aware of. Do you have any comment on that?
To repeat my question - if the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then would this confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros).
Is this a correct interpretation?
The 1305 Court of Common Pleas case that you have mentioned appears to refer to earlier generations of the St Owen family, and whilst interesting, is not strictly relevant to the question at issue.
Robert O'Connor
Unfortunately Robert, the 1305 case is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.

Doug Thompson
Doug Thompson
2017-09-20 19:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.

Doug Thompson
w***@gmail.com
2017-09-21 19:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Thompson
Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.
Doug Thompson
Doug,

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

I find it curious that Mary de Ros was petitioning on behalf of Ralph’s infant son John rather than Ralph himself. Can anyone suggest why Mary did this? Davis shows that Ralph was under age in 1316 and had attained his majority by 1323.
Doug Thompson
2017-09-21 22:21:01 UTC
Permalink
William,

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

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

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

Doug Thompson
w***@gmail.com
2017-09-22 09:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mackenzie
William,
I agree that this petition makes it unlikely that John is the son of Alice, daughter of Peter de Braose. However, the first mention of Alice is in 1361, I think, as Ralph's widow. It is by no means unlikely that Alice was Ralph's wife but not John's mother.
So I don't think the petition does shed any light on the possibilities for Alice's parentage.
I too find the petition strange, for if Ralph is under age, John must be a small child. It does not say what it was that Thomas had taken from John. Maybe it was a valuable object owned by the child.
Doug Thompson
The following fine, which does not appear in Davis' paper, proves that they were married by at least 1330:

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

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

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

So Ralph and Alice were indeed John's parents. If Alice was Peter's daughter then she was a very young mother, but given that Ralph was also underage in 1316 that makes sense.
Robert O'Connor
2017-09-22 10:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Whilst it appears that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen, was unlikely to have been a daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury, it may be of interest if I post what I have been able to piece together on the St Owen family.

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

I descend from the family via the Downtons.

Robert O'Connor

_______________

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

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

3.Thomas St Owen, It was recorded in the ‘Victoria County History of Sussex’ in respect of the Manor of Clapham as follows – “In 1402 Thomas St. Owen, son & heir of John St. Owen, died a minor & was succeeded by his father's uncle Patrick, but 8 years later Patrick was shown not to have been the rightful heir & the manor passed to Thomas Downton, nephew of Thomas St. Owen & then a minor. At his death, before 1456, he was succeeded by his three daughters”. Died 1402. I.P.M. (Hereford), 16 Feb. 1404/5 – “They say ... John is brother of Thomas Seyntoweyn, son of John, son of John, son of John, son of Ralph junior, son of Ralph senior. His predecessors died seised of the manors from time immemorial. They descended from father to son, from Ralph to Ralph to John to John to John & so to Thomas. Patrick is the next heir of Thomas, being the son of Ralph junior, father of John, father of John”. I.P.M. 1410 – “Thomas son & heir of John Seyntoweyn. Writ, plenius certiorari, reciting the last inquisition & saying that Patrick was not the heir, but that Joan sister of Thomas was & Thomas son of Joan now is. Order to inquire, 24 Feb. 1410. Sussex. Inquisition. Bramber. 4 March. Patrick, named in the inquisition, was not the heir on 22 June 1402, but Joan sister of Thomas then was, Thomas Dounton, son of Joan, is now next heir & aged 11 years & more”. d.s.p.
w***@gmail.com
2017-09-22 10:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert O'Connor
Whilst it appears that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen, was unlikely to have been a daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury, it may be of interest if I post what I have been able to piece together on the St Owen family.
Any additions (especially in terms of identifying any of the unknown spouses) or comments would be welcome.
I descend from the family via the Downtons.
Robert O'Connor
<snip>

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

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

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

There are carvings believed to represent Thomas Acton and Joan Downton in the home Thomas built c. 1467 (the Moat House, Longnor). He is shown bearded and she is wearing a wimple.
Doug Thompson
2017-09-22 23:02:36 UTC
Permalink
William

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

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

Doug Thompson
p***@gmail.com
2020-03-01 04:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Thompson
Unfortunately Robert, the 1316 petition is not a useful new piece of evidence. The St Owen family did not receive Clapham as a result of a marriage to Alice. They had held it literally since Domesday. There had been a close association between the St Owens and the Braoses all through the 11th to 14th centuries.
Doug Thompson
The following supports the contention that the Owens did not receive Clapham as the result of Ralph's marriage to Alice.

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

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

w***@gmail.com
2017-09-17 13:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Robert O'Connor
Is this a correct interpretation?
Robert O'Connor
Dear Robert ~
Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed.
You should reread his paper. Davis marshalls several pieces of contemporary evidence to support his case, for example:

“The facts that John St.Owen owed a substantial sum to Thomas de Braose, and that his son's chamber's daubing was paid by the manor of Wiston owned by Peter de Braose (of Wiston), are suggestive that he was a close relative of them.”
Post by Douglas Richardson
According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless.
Davis identifies the 1569 visitation of Herefordshire by Robert Cooke as the earliest source for Alice’s surname and paternity. In that visitation, her father is identified as “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” and the arms shown are of the Braose family.

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

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

As Davis points out, Sir Peter’s family had links with Horsham (his grandson Thomas was buried there).
Post by Douglas Richardson
Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family.
You have no grounds to be making assurances. You assume that Alice’s father was a cadet of the senior Brewes family; Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury was exactly that.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters.
Good point about the other daughters, but this is a later visitation and it doesn’t mean Alice de Braose didn’t exist.
Post by Douglas Richardson
For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff.
In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Davis comments that “In 1316 Ralph St.Owen's property was in the hands of his overlord, Mary, widow of William Braose and mother of this Peter Braose. She would probably have controlled his marriage as well, and either controlled or had substantial influence over the marriages of any children of her recently deceased son Peter. This provides opportunity for the marriage. Motive is that any daughters of Peter, having at least two brothers, would have had no inheritance, and Ralph held several manors in Sussex, Herefordshire and Radnorshire, which would provide a nice support for him and his wife.”

The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion.

William Acton
Douglas Richardson
2017-09-17 17:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:

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

Dear William ~

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

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

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2017-09-17 21:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
< The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion.
<
< William Acton
Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620
Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter
de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312.
Or more accurately, he hasn't proven that the “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” of the 1589 Herefordshire visitation is the same as Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire.
Post by Douglas Richardson
However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or
even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named
in the Visitation.
You express this like it is a prerequisite. It is not. To prove this connection he need not prove that Peter de Brewes had three daughters, just the relevant one, and she need not have been an heiress. It sort of loses track of the goal to focus only on the 1620 visitation and insist that it must be perfectly accurate for the relationship to be true.
Post by Douglas Richardson
As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed.
Yes, and he believes it is not flawed. So far, the only reason you have given is that it is that the connection is hinted at in (but not exclusively in) an imperfect 1620 visitation. That may be reason to believe the solution is unproven, but doesn't really hit the mark in explaining why it is flawed.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2017-09-17 21:51:30 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Todd. The statement from Douglas:

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

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

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

--Joe Cook
Loading...