GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-10 > 1159893801
From: "Robert Forrest" <>
Subject: Correction to Complete Peerage?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:43:21 -0700
What is the current consensus for the interpretation of the phrase "et amplius" (and more) in an inquisition post mortem?
CP 3:148, Chaundos, tells us that Sir Roger Chaundos d. 24 Sep 1353, and "his widow...d. 15 Aug. 1361 (f)." It then carries on with:
"2. Sir Thomas Chaundos, of Snodhill, Fownhope, etc., s. and h., by 2nd wife, aged 30 at his father's death."
Footnote (f) tells us Sir Thomas was aged 30 and more at his mother's death, eight years later:
" 'Matill' que fuit uxor Rogeri de Chaundos.' Writ of diem cl. ext. 10 Nov 35 Edw. III. Inq., co. Hereford, 19 Feb 1361/2. 'Et dicunt quod obiit in festo Assumpcionis beate Marie ultimo preterito Et dicunt quod Thomas Chaundos miles filius et heres Rogeri Chaundos est filius et heres masculus quem predictus Rogerus Chaundos de corpore predicte Matill' procreavit et est etatis triginta annorum et amplius.' (Ch. Inq. p.m., Edw. III, file 166, no. 42)."
From the other IPMs I have seen, footnote (f) leads me to believe Sir Thomas was born between 20 Feb 1330/1 and 18 Feb 1331/2. But if he was thirty at his father's death, he was born between 25 Sep 1322 and 24 Sep 1323.
CP provides no citation for its opening sentence on Sir Thomas, saying he was 30 at his father's death. This makes me suspect there is an error in CP, not just an overly liberal use of the phrase "and more". Perhaps someone has some other independent information on Sir Thomas's birth date which will support one or the other date. Or someone can provide a good hard definition for "and more".