Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 2 months ago
This IPM into the Gloucestershire lands of Gilbert Talbot has been calendared as CIPM xxi.322, but only five brief disconnected phrases from its text appear there, followed by the statement ‘remainder mostly illegible'. Both the Chancery and Exchequer texts do indeed present challenges, but in fact between them the entire text can be read, with some effort and the use of an ultra-violet lamp. It appears below.
Posted by: mholford in Featured inquisition, Proofs of age 5 years, 2 months ago
Michael Hicks discusses CIPM xxii.829-30, two proofs of age which bear on the legal dispute central to the Armburgh papers, one of the few surviving letter collections from medieval England.
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 3 months ago
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.
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 4 months ago
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.
Posted by: mholford in genealogy and family history 5 years, 5 months ago
Genealogist Brad Verity uses an IPM to untangle a problem in the Courtenay of Molland pedigree.