Viewing posts by mholford

Unpublished IPMs: Thomas de Camoys, knight, Hampshire, 1422

This IPM into the Hampshire lands of Sir Thomas de Camoys ought to have appeared in CIPM xxi alongside IPMs 749-53, which deal with his lands in other counties.  Its omission from the calendar must have been accidental, as the original is filed immediately before the others in C 138/57/29.

Unpublished IPMs: Margaret, widow of Richard Fuyst, 1421

This IPM, made pursuant to a writ of diem clausit extremum, was the first to be taken into the lands of Margaret Fuyst. It ought to have appeared in CIPM xxi immediately before IPM 403, which responded to a subsequent writ of que plura requesting further details of the ‘divers lands and tenements' mentioned in this, the primary IPM. The omission of this inquisition from CIPM xxi must have been accidental, as the two inquisitions are filed side by side in C 138/44/14. The results of both were summarised in the subsequent writ to the escheator ordering him to take the heir's fealty and give him seisin of the lands; CFR 1413-22, p. 374.

IPM as Identity Solver: Elizabeth Wonwell (c.1432-1482), Wife of Sir Philip Courtenay of Molland

Genealogist Brad Verity uses an IPM to untangle a problem in the Courtenay of Molland pedigree.

To some extent fictitious? Eleanor Roos' two Proofs of Age, 1449 and 1499

Eleanor Roos, daughter of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney, Lincolnshire, was, unusually, the subject of two Proofs of Age taken fifty years apart, one when she was 16, the other when she was 66.  Only the later of the two has been calendared, and that only partially (as CIPM 1497-1504.254), but full calendar entries for both have recently been posted to the blog.[1. 1449:; 1499:]

Unpublished IPMs: Proof of Age for Eleanor Poulet, daughter and heir of Robert Roos, knight, 1499

This proof of the age of Eleanor Poulet, daughter of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney in Lincolnshire, taken in 1499, is unusual for several reasons. It was taken when she was a 66 year old widow, and was the second proof made of her age - an earlier one had been taken fifty years previously. It provides a date and place of birth which contradicts those supplied in the earlier proof. And it is self-evidently a fabrication; several of the jurors claim to have played a part in the baptism or to have been involved in other adult activities in the year of their own birth or when aged only 3-5. These matters will be discussed in greater detail in a separate post, to be made shortly.