GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1026182121
From: "Sutliff" <>
Subject: Brus: Keats-Rohan was correct
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:35:21 -0700
A month or so ago I posted a dilemma of a Brus identity which conflicted
with the placement of the wives of Adam I and Adam II de Brus. Scholars
like Wormald, Greenway, Clay, Dugdale and Farrer made the wife of Adam I
to be Juetta de Arches and the wife of Adam II to be Agnes d'Aumale.
With the recent publication of _Domesday Descendants_ Dr. Keats-Rohan
indicated that it was Adam II who married Juetta. Was this a possible
The answer is no, Keats-Rohan has it right and the others did not.
An article by Ruth M. Blakely "The Bruses of Skelton and William of
Aumale" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Vol. 73, 2001, pp. 19-28),
clears the confusion by discussing just this problem.
That Juetta was wife of Adam II and mother of Peter I is proved by two
grants made by Peter I to the canons of Healaugh Park Priory in the
Arches fee. In one "Peter refers to his mother as "Juetta" and in the
other more specifically as Juetta de Arches..."
That Agnes d'Aumale was wife of Adam I and mother of Adam II is more
circumstantial, but evidence is given for this placement as well.
Juetta is given as mother of Hugh, Agnes and Matilda by her first
husband Roger de Flamville and Peter I de Brus and Isabella (wife of
Henry de Percy) by her second.
Hope this helps,
|Brus: Keats-Rohan was correct by "Sutliff" <>|