GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027975339
Subject: Re: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:47:49 EDT
[This is being sent to Rootsweb again because it was blocked the first time]
In a message dated 7/29/2002 1:17:40 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Reedpcgen
What we have in 1317 was a marriage contract drawn up between two parties
(Edward II and Multon's father) who wished their wards to marry at a point in
the future - when it became possible.
Marriage contracts were frequently drawn up between members of the gentry and
peerage. They were drawn up at any point it was convenient. They were not
necessarily associated with the act or time of betrothal, or the ability to
be betrothed, and not infrequently stipulated that if one of the children
died, the marriage would occur with the next surviving sibling in stead.
In a message dated 7/28/2002 7:20:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Therav3
<< If we then take the information from the IPM of Joan de Gaveston,
which states on 14 Jan 1324/5 that she was 15 years of age, her birth
date should lie between 15 Jan 1308/9 and 14 Jan 1309/10.
Therefore, the facts of the IPM agree quite nicely with the
re-interpretation of the 1317 agreement. >>
It's a technicality, but the document involved was an inquisition ad quod
damnum, not an inquisition post mortem (which was an inquisition to determine
a different set of facts).
Again, as John Carmi Parsons and Hamilton do their best to point out, Joan's
age was irrelevant to the inquisition ad quod damnum. And as she died single
and unmarried, and under age 16, it didn't matter how much younger than
sixteen she was if one were going to argue that her legal status was a
consideration. We also have ample evidence from IPMs, which is an
inquisition that was supposed to determine the age of the next living heir/s
(but not the decedent), that those ages are frequently two years or more off
(even though the jury was specifically held to determine the age).
The immediate question here, however, is whether this wording should imply
anything to do with the ability to be betrothed or act of betrothal.