GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-02 > 1298028657
From: Derek Howard <>
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 03:30:57 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 18, 7:16 am, wrote:
> To be slightly more specific
> Peter de Braose and his wife Joan de Percy were *divorced*
> She later died in 1370.
> However when Beatrix was named as the heir of her dead brother John 1426/7
> she is stated to then be "aged 60"
> Peter and Joan de Percy were divorced much earlier than for which this
> could be possible, and so therefore either Beatrix was a flagrant liar as to her
> age, or she couldn't be a child of this marriage.
I have not followed in detail all the earlier exchanges so please
excuse a naive query but I understand that the IPM, on 1 Apr 1427,
states "dicta Beatrix est etatis sexaginta annorum et amplius" i.e.
"the said Beatrix is sixty years of age and more". So she could be
born anytime before 1 Apr 1367. It does not preclude a substantially
earlier birth and I would suggest the "and more" is significant. While
she may not be the first to claim a younger age, however, the inquiry
would have no doubt sought evidence from witnesses and it may simply
be there was no one around who could testify to events more than 60
years previously. Paul Mackenzie's reasoned speculation is that Peter
de Brewes divorced his first wife Joan Percy in 1352. If that is
correct, Beatrix would have had to be 75 in 1427 to be this Joan's
daughter. Is this impossible?
|Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley) by Derek Howard <>|