GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-11 > 1004936909


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Braose - Wingfield Connection
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 05:08:29 +0000
References: <4d.13a82c9b.29131b85@aol.com>,<a05100301b809fe813900@[10.0.1.2]> <3BE60120.A6CA688B@interfold.com>
In-Reply-To: <3BE60120.A6CA688B@interfold.com>


"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote --

>Cristopher Nash wrote:
>>
>> Might we have a word or two by way of clarification? Otherwise I've
>> the chilling feeling that some here may begin to fancy that this
>> intriguing project stems less from care than from a care to
>> appropriate a powerful family's lines in place of that of the
>> Honeypots.
>
>Except that the Honeypots are not displaced, but rather the
>Glanvilles, and it is not obvious to be that Glanville is a
>lesser family than Braose. As to the Honeypots "of Wingfield", a
>distinction needs to be made here. THe early Wingfields were of
>Wingfield, as in "from" Wingfield, and the same is true of the
>Honeypots (Honeypot being a farm located within the manor of
>Wingfield). As far as I can tell, the manor of Wingfield arrived
>in the family with the marriage of Sir John to Eleanor, the
>heiress, and then passed right back out with his daughter. (In
>spite of your prohibition) the arms probably don't appear because
>first it was a collateral relationship, and by the time of the
>16th century's obscene quarterings, the true nature of the
>connection had been lost (do Glanville appear?).

Thanks for this, Todd, and I entirely agree with your suggestions.
You're quite right in asking whether Glanville appears in the arms,
and along with Braose, it doesn't. (I hold no brief with the
Glanvilles, they may be displaced all anyone feels keenly apt.) I
agree, too, about the phrase 'of Wingfield' not meaning possessor of
the manor of Wingfield. It's why, for example, I'm not all that
happy about e.g. rough paraphrases suggesting that in a fine of 'Hen
56 No. 70' nine named manors were in the possession of Richard de
Braose when in fact, in one case at least (Bramley), a moiety was
held by his predecessors, and in another (Sinnington), in the
previous generation only one bovate of a more extensive manor had
been held, and there appears to be no surviving record of when/how
the whole manor was reassembled. (One might as well say, when we
read that Eleanor de Glanville inherited "69 acres Wingfield Hall" --
! whose language ['acres', 'Hall'] is this? -- that she held the
manor of Wingfield, with all the predictable genealogical hiccups to
follow.)

The immediate issue rests, though, not on the Wingfield acquisition
of Wingfield via a Glanville marriage (which is a different
presumption and one, as I said, that I've long been uneasy about) but
on a Braose marriage and subsequent inheritance from Braose. My
point's of course simply that we need some clear sign that Braose had
the manor of Wingfield, and I've suggested a few ways we might find
out, some of which I'll try right away here. The remaining one - the
Moriarty argument - I feel perhaps someone who's argued from its
conclusion might be able to find more quickly than I out in this
English wilderness.

Sorry to bother you with these details, I just didn't want you to
think I wasn't listening! Again, this isn't a family I know anything
about, I just happened to drop in on the conversation, and no doubt I
should get out! Trouble is my curiosity's raised now.

Cris


--

This thread: