Viewing posts for the category Unpublished inquisitions
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 4 years, 9 months ago
The IPM into the Cornish lands of Sir John Colshull has been calendared as CIPM xxi.121, but incompletely. The calendar text has a number of gaps and the last third of the IPM has been reduced to just a few disconnected phrases, followed by the statement ‘remainder mostly illegible'. Both the Chancery and Exchequer copies of the IPM are indeed difficult in parts, but between them, and with the use of an ultra-violet lamp, it has been possible to work out the entire text. It was also found that the calendar entry's first paragraph did not accurately represent the original text, so the entire entry is reproduced below with the first paragraph corrected, the gaps filled and the final third inserted. For convenience passages which in CIPM xxi.121 are represented by cross-references to identical passages in Colshull's Devon IPM (xxi.120) are here set out in extenso.
Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 2 months ago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Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 3 months ago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Posted by: mholford in Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 4 months ago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 Unpublished inquisitions 5 years, 5 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.