Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Jean Jacques

Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Jean Jacques » 13 sep 2006 19:44:03

Here are some questions for those familiar with Inquisitions Post Mortem
(IPM).
I understood that IPMs concerned tenant in chief. So I tried to understand
the abstract in the document
"Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem sive escaetarum" vol 2(1808) J. Caley
and J. Bayley,
concerning Robert Jorce (in 1371) saying :
anno 45 Edward III N°33 " Nullas tenuit terras in Comm' Notts" meaning " no
land held in Notts."

I suppose a person named Robert Jorce died at that time (1371) but How comes
a tenant in chief had no land?
I suppose the N°33 refers to the IPM which could be available somewhere
probably the Nat. Archives.

The escheators were more successfull with his cousin also called Robert died
few years after because they found a manor of Burton Jorz.

Thanks for your comments.

Jean-Jacques

Gjest

Re: Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 sep 2006 20:19:31

Jean Jacques schrieb:

Here are some questions for those familiar with Inquisitions Post Mortem
(IPM).
I understood that IPMs concerned tenant in chief. So I tried to understand
the abstract in the document
"Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem sive escaetarum" vol 2(1808) J. Caley
and J. Bayley,
concerning Robert Jorce (in 1371) saying :
anno 45 Edward III N°33 " Nullas tenuit terras in Comm' Notts" meaning " no
land held in Notts."

I suppose a person named Robert Jorce died at that time (1371) but How comes
a tenant in chief had no land?
I suppose the N°33 refers to the IPM which could be available somewhere
probably the Nat. Archives.

I am not familiar with the 1808 work, but if it only presents extracts
from IPMs, perhaps it was just saying that he held no land in
Nottinghamshire - i.e. he held land in chief elsewhere (did Caley &
Bayley focus on Notts by any chance?). Alternatively, perhaps there
was some claim to be a tenant in chief, and the Inquest found that it
was baseless.

You are right in saying that No 33 45 Edward III refers to the IPM
record itself. A look at the published calendar entry would be
instructive - anyone have quick access?

Michael

Gjest

Re: Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 sep 2006 20:27:24

Jean Jacques schrieb:

Here are some questions for those familiar with Inquisitions Post Mortem
(IPM).
I understood that IPMs concerned tenant in chief. So I tried to understand
the abstract in the document
"Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem sive escaetarum" vol 2(1808) J. Caley
and J. Bayley,
concerning Robert Jorce (in 1371) saying :
anno 45 Edward III N°33 " Nullas tenuit terras in Comm' Notts" meaning " no
land held in Notts."

I suppose a person named Robert Jorce died at that time (1371) but How comes
a tenant in chief had no land?
I suppose the N°33 refers to the IPM which could be available somewhere
probably the Nat. Archives.

The escheators were more successfull with his cousin also called Robert died
few years after because they found a manor of Burton Jorz.

PS According to The History of Parliament, Vol 2 (1386-1422) a Sir
Robert Jorce died 1369, leaving a son and heir William; he was a Notts
man whose family was seated at Burton Joyce (sic) and held land at
Nottingham, Gedling, Stoke Bardolf-with-Carlton, and Bakewell
(Derbyshire) and Loughborough (Leics). The reference given is to the
extracted IPM in the Thoroton Society's Notts IPMs, (Thor Soc Pub xii),
68, 69.

I am not sure how this fits in with Robert Jorce (IPM 1371) and Robert
Joyce of Burton Joyce (IPM "a few years after") - according to HoP
William Jorce held from his father's death in 1369 until his own death,
without issue, in 1403.

MA-R

Jean Jacques

Re: Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Jean Jacques » 13 sep 2006 21:28:27

Thanks Michael, I will have a look on The History of Parliament.

Caley & Baley doc. "Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem" Vol 2 don't
focus not only on Notts. That 's cover all England.
Perhaps Robert Jorce held lands somewhere else outside England in Gascogne
or Normandy.

Or may be there are several IPMs for the same person Robert Jorce?

In 1369 Rob died leaving a son william
In 1372 the king orders an Inquisition (ref. N° 33) saying Rob. has no land.
In 1376 Edward III orders another inquisition (ref. N° 71) where they found
Rob. de Jorce held land in Notts. in Derbys. etc...

I think the clue is in the IPM N°33 done in 1372.

Regards.
Jean Jacques

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 14 sep 2006 08:04:58

You have to consider these returns as part of the administration of the
Kingdom. The writ was sent out by the King. The jurors were assembled
in each of the counties to which the writ was sent. They made their
return. Thus the King had a snapshot of where that family stood and
knew whether to exact a fine, to take a minor or an heiress into
wardship.

Sometimes the system didn't work perfectly and a return was made which
subsequently was shown not to be correct, or there was a dispute as to
who was the right heir as in the case of William de Vesci of Kildare
who died at Bannockburn in 1314. Generally the system gives every
appearance of having worked like clockwork.

As to why the jurors of Notts made such a blunt, allbeit not incorrect,
return, we cannot know. However the writ would normally have been
issued very shortly after the death and here there is a 2 year gap.

Robert

Re: Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward III

Legg inn av Robert » 14 sep 2006 10:11:27

As to why the jurors of Notts made such a blunt, allbeit not incorrect,
return, we cannot know. However the writ would normally have been
issued very shortly after the death and here there is a 2 year gap.

That 's might mean that Robert Jorce were not in England when he died.

And nobody warned the king at that time since the problem arose few years
after.
I have the abstract content of the second IPM done in 1376 from the calendar
of IPM T 14 (1952 Chapman & all)
In particular it says: that the manor of Burton Jorse was held by knight 's
service of John de Ridewale, who granted the services of the Robert Jorse 's
father to William Deyncourt.
I don't undertstant the meaning of that but apparently the manor passed in
certain form to William Deyncourt whose the death triggered further
investigations.

Also in the CPR 1374-1377 p377
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/
10 Nov. 1376 Grant to the King 's serjant Richard Lancastre of the wardship
of the manor of Birton Jorce, late of Robert Jorce (the deceased), who held
the manor by knight service of the king's ward William Deyncourt, kinsman
and heir of William Deyncourt who held in chief , with the marriage of the
heir of the said Robert.

Is it because of a mariage between a daughter of Robert Jorce with William
Deyncourt that William D. held in chief the manor? That 's not clear.

Nevertheless this doesn't explain the blunt of the Notts IPM jurors few
years before in 1372. Unfortunatly I have nothing on this IPM even in the
Calendar.

Thanks for your comments.
Jean Jacques.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»