GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-02 > 1298033228
From: "Doug Thompson" <>
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:47:08 -0000
Your argument concerning the age statement is correct Derek. But the more
pertinent fact is that Joan Percy's estates went to her sisters, not John or
Beatrix de Brewes, so it is unlikely they could have been her children.
"Derek Howard" <> wrote in message
On Feb 18, 7:16 am, wrote:
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 "Doug Thompson" <>|