Blog
To some extent fictitious? Eleanor Roos' two Proofs of Age, 1449 and 1499
Posted by: mholford in Featured inquisition, Proofs of age 10 years, 10 months ago
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entries for both have recently been posted to the blog.[1. 1449: http://blog.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/2013/07/unpublished-ipms-proof-of-age-for-eleanor-daughter-and-heir-of-robert-roos-of-gedney-knight-1449/; 1499: http://blog.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/2013/07/unpublished-ipms-proof-of-age-for-eleanor-poulet-daughter-and-heir-of-robert-roos-knight-1499-2/.]
Unpublished IPMs: Proof of Age for Eleanor Poulet, daughter and heir of Robert Roos, knight, 1499
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 10 years, 10 months ago
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.
Unpublished IPMs: Proof of Age for Eleanor, daughter and heir of Robert Roos, of Gedney, knight, 1449
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 10 years, 10 months ago
This proof of the age of Eleanor Roos, daughter of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney in Lincolnshire, taken in 1449, is fairly typical of such documents, both in its contents and the circumstances in which it was taken. What is unusual, however, is that fifty years later a second proof was taken, which reported a different place and date of birth. This strange, possibly unique, turn of events will be discussed in a separate post, to be made shortly.
Unpublished IPMs: Katherine, widow of Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, 1419
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 10 years, 10 months ago
This inquisition, made pursuant to a writ of melius inquirendo, was the second to be made into the Suffolk lands of Katherine, widow of Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk. It ought to have appeared in CIPM xxi immediately after inquisition 290, which was the response from Norfolk to the same writ of melius inquirendo, enquiring whether the current earl was the male heir of Katherine's husband (a single writ had been sent to John Lancastre as escheator in both Norfolk and Suffolk). Its omission from CIPM xxi must have been accidental, as the two inquisitions are filed side by side in C 138/40.
Medieval Dating: The Modernisation of Dates and the Enhancement of Earlier Volumes
Posted by: mholford in Law and administration, News and events 10 years, 10 months ago
Dr. Gordon McKelvie explains the importance of adding modernized dates to the earlier CIPM volumes, and explores the research possibilities offered by the original dates found in the documents themselves.