General Notes

Ancestral Roots has Juetta de Arches m. Adam I de Brus, but that has changed.

The following two posts to soc.genealogy.medieval indicate that the "accepted" order of wives for Adam I & II de Brus should actually be reversed:

From: Rosie Bevan (rbevan@@paradise.net.nz)
Subject: Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt & Brus
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-05 18:38:09 PST

Hi Cris

As you have commented, K. Keats-Rohan in Domesday Descendants [p.354, 355] has listed Adam I de Brus of Skelton(d.1142) as married to Agnes of Aumale, and Adam II Brus (d.1196) as married to Juetta de Arches. This is in variance with Farrer's observations in vol. 3 of Early Yorkshire Charters in which the opposite placement is upheld. The situation is not helped by CP which claims [VII : 670] that Agnes of Aumale married William de Roumare and secondly Piers de Brus.

A study of the chronology tends to support  K-R's findings.

-snip-

Juetta de Arches married Roger de Flamville (d.1169) who held the 7 Arches knights' fees in her right in 1166. [Charles Clay (ed.) 'Early Yorkshire Families', p.2]. She had children by de Flamville but the fees eventually descended to Peter de Brus II indicating that her Brus children were her eventual heirs, not the Flamville ones. Her children by Roger Flamville were in the custody of Adam II during their minority. Adam II is known to have had two children  - Piers and Isabel who married Henry de Percy. In 1193 Juetta gave land in Askham to her daughter Isabel de Brus. The charter clearly says "Noveritis me concessisse et presenti carta confirmasse Isabelle de Brus filie mee et heredibus suis totam terram de Ascham..."  Farrer uncharacteristically makes the error of assuming that Isabella was her granddaughter [EYC I ; no. 548, 549].

As Juetta died in 1206, she would have had to have been nearly 90 had she been mother of Adam II de Brus (b 1134). A not impossible achievement, but highly unlikely for the time and place.

Cheers

Rosie

----------------------------------------

From: Cristopher Nash (c@@windsong.u-net.com)
Subject: Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt & Brus
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-08 04:13:25 PST

Now I can quickly summarize the argument of Ruth Blakely, 'The Bruses of Skelton and William of Aumale' in _Yorks Archeol Jnl_ (2001) 73:19-28, which appears to be the clincher leading Keats-Rohan in DD to reverse the traditional order of two early Brus marriages, giving (1) the wife of Adam I de Brus as Agnes d'Aumale and (2) the wife of Adam II de Brus as Juetta de Arches.  Blaklely's article is devoted specifically to this double question.

On Juetta de Arches: The conventional account, Blakely says, derives from Dugdale in _Baronage of England_, in which he cites as evidence a papal mandate cited in _Mon. Ang._, where in fact Blakely finds that "It is not apparant from this record which of the two Adams is signified.  Nor are they named in any of the other sources which Dugdale cites....His reasons for naming Adam I rather than Adam II as Juetta's husband are therefore obscure.  Despite this ambiguity, the identification was accepted by William Farrer and subsequent writers, such as Wormald, Greenway and Clay, although some of them, like Dalton, have noted inconsistencies arising from it" [18-20].

Blakely's argument takes as its starting point an alternative account by William Brown, who -- giving Juetta as wife of Adam II -- in 1895 had cited records in the chartulary of Healaugh Park Priory.  Here 2 grants appear, made by Adam II's son Peter de Brus I to the canons of the priory in the Arches fee.  In one, Peter refers to his mother as 'Juetta', and in the other specifically as 'Juetta de Arches'.  Blakely cites further evidence e.g. that Adam II's daughter, Isabella, is granted land from the Arches fee ca. 1192 by Juetta who calls her 'my daughter' [22-3].  Blakely then offers an ample and concerted explanation as to why, nevertheless, William, count of Aumale (eventually Earl of York per K. Stephen), and bro of Agnes d'Aumale, acquired custody of Adam II in the latter's minority (22-25). (Essentially he, as Adam II's maternal uncle, had immediate strong political reasons for seeking some control over the large Brus domain.)  Blakely's conclusion is that Juetta de Arches, da. and ultimately sole heir of William de Arches and widow of Roger de Flamville and still living 1209, is certainly the wife of Adam II de Brus.

-snip-

An important aspect of Blakely's argument is that this reconstruction of the 4 marriages of Juetta and Agnes resolves a number of problems that have long dogged the Brus genealogy.  A useful part of its development is a thoughtful assessment of the historical (inter-family political/economic) background to these events.  Rosie, I think when your interloan copy gets to you you'll find that the article parallels a good part of your smart chronological case, and yours may in fact lend it further support.

Hope this quick sketch helps.

Cris