Heirs of the Half-Blood: A Case in Point

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Heirs of the Half-Blood: A Case in Point

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 08 okt 2004 22:07:59

Dear Newsgroup ~

In recent posts on the newsgroup, Chris Phillips has discussed the
little known medieval practice of excluding male heirs of the
half-blood, in favor of sisters of the whole blood. Below is a case
in point. It concerns the dispostion of a lawsuit filed in 1273 by
John Fitz John, son and heir of Sir John Fitz Geoffrey, the latter of
which was half-brother to William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex (died
1227). John Fitz Geoffrey and William de Mandeville were both sons of
Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex (died 1213), but by different
wives. John Fitz John had sued Roger, Bishop of Norwich, for the
advowson of Great Massingham, Norfolk, presumably claiming to be the
male heir to William de Mandeville. Bishop Roger noted that John Fitz
John was actually heir of the half-blood and asked for judgement. The
matter "fell to the justices to decide." I have transcribed a copy
of the abstract of the ruling of the justices below.

"Rule. It was adjudged by Master Roger de Seaton and his colleagues
that where possession of an inheritance is transferred from a father
to his son and he has sisters of the whole blood at his death the
inheritance descends to those sisters of the whole blood etc. and no
half-brother who survives will be heir but only the sisters. In such
a case it is necessary to count step by step both through the females
and through the males even if the females have died without issue.
But if any brother does not survive to take the inheritance so that he
does not gain possession there is it necessary to count only of the
males and not of the females, that is from the male by the first wife
to those by the next wife. Because G[eoffrey Fitz Peter] senior had
Geoffrey, W[illiam], D. and E. by one wife and John by a different
wife.

Rule. And note that nothing else makes the sister by the same wife
heir before the brother by a different wife than possession of the
inheritance after the death of the ancestor: and note that is not
allowed to challenge the degree of blood where above or below is
challenged in line." END OF QUOTE [Reference: Paul A. Brand, ed., The
Earliest English Law Reports, 1 (Selden Soc. 111) (1996): 16-17].

As indicated in an earlier post of today's date involving another
suit, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex, appears to have been
survived at his death by two sons, Geoffrey and William, and two
daughters, Maud and Alice, all by his first wife, and one son, John
Fitz Geoffrey, by his second wife. It appears that the initials "D."
and "E." in the law report above refer to Geoffrey Fitz Peter's two
daughters, Maud and Alice. Geoffrey Fitz Peter was succeeded on his
death first by his two sons, Geoffrey and William, and then by his
daughter, Maud. Maud inherited as full sister to William, to
exclusion of their common half-brother, John Fitz Geoffrey.

The editor of the law report cited above adds a comment in a footnote
that the "precise meaning of the last passage is unclear," referring
to the statement that "it is not allowed to challenge the degree of
blood where above or below is challenged in line.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»