no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Maud (Braose) de Beauchamp (abt. 1111 - bef. 1201)

Maud de Beauchamp formerly Braose aka de Braose
Born about in Bramber, Sussex, Englandmap
Daughter of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Wife of — married 1128 [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died before before about age 90 in Elmley Castle, Worcestershiremap
Profile last modified | Created 5 Jul 2011
This page has been accessed 8,637 times.
Medieval Project
Maud (Braose) de Beauchamp is managed by the Medieval Project.
Pre-1500 certified?
Join: Medieval Project
Discuss: Medieval

Biography

She has been detached from parents Philip Braose and Eleanor Totnes. Profile needs to be researched... Project Medlands calls her Bertha and names her as the daughter of William de Briouse and his wife Bertha of Hereford. [1]

'Children"

  • unknown daughter, b.c. 1128; m. Robert de Worth
  • Maud Beauchamp, b.c. 1134, d. 1181; m. Robert Marmion
  • Emma Beauchamp, b.c. 1133, d.a. 1192; m. Ralph de Sudeley
  • William de Beauchamp, b. c 1130, d. b 1211; m. Joan de St. Valery

Research Notes

Maud de Braose [2]married William de Beauchamp, Baron Elmley, son of Walter de Beauchamp, Lord Elmley, Sheriff of Worcestershire and Emeline d' Arbitot. [3] These citations came from Marlyn Lewis[4].

Sources

  1. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3.htm#WilliamBeauchampdied1197B
  2. Unknown author, Wallop Family, p. 69.
  3. Some Early English Pedigrees, by Vernon M. Norr, p. 34. [1]
  4. Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors & Cousins.

See also:





Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of Maud's DNA have taken a DNA test.

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 6

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
I've detached the parents with a note in the bio. I'm sorry that I'm still unavailable for research. Please start a G2G post for discussion. I'm removing myself as PM since it's being managed by the project.
Cawley puts information he isn't sure about in square brackets, so there does seem to be some doubts.

There is also a correction to Domesday Descendants here https://fmg.ac/projects/domesday-corrections/descendants-601-900#p.725%20de%20Sudeley,%20Radulf;%20p.315%20de%20Bellocampo%20Vicecomes,%20Willelm though I am a bit unclear which William de Beauchamp are being discussed.

However either way there probably needs to be more investigation into this family group.

posted by John Atkinson
Cawley:

"m [BERTHA de Briouse, daughter of [WILLIAM [II] de Briouse & his wife Bertha of Hereford]. According to Domesday Descendants, the wife of William [I] de Beauchamp was "Bertha, daughter of William II de Braose"[928]."

Darlene, are we sourcing this profile via "Unknown Author" and the Norr book from 1968? What exactly does Norr say? What's his primary source?

Are we saying both Cawley and Keats-Rohan are wrong? Or just that she's wrong, and he's cribbing from her?

While Cawley admits problems with the timeline and inconsistent sources (jurors blurb) we'd be hanging our hat on what exactly?

Apparently, just a random soc. post from 2002 citing John Ravilious (Therav3) disagreeing with Weis without providing any other sources other than the inertia of his own personal tree.

So on the one hand we appear to have Weis, Cawley, and Keats-Rohan... and on the other we have Jim Weber on rootsweb/soc.genealogy.

The only commonality is ALL of these writers identify problems. Disagreements. Uncertainties. Surely if this COULD be proven, it would be by now?

Seems like we are making a mistake to publish one of many possible alternative explanations, as if it were a proven fact (it's not) and cite notional sources that don't even support the profile relationships we're alleging. That's not genealogy. Seems more like stubbornness. Let us aim higher.

Should her first name Unknown? If not, why not? (We don't know what it is. We don't even know WHO she is.)

Should her notional, unsupported parents be disconnected? If not, why not? (We don't know who they are. Our current sources don't agree.)

Should this profile have a disputed origins tag? If not, why not?

I fail to see the certainty required to say what we're publishing to the world now is correct. Authoritative. Factual. It's not.

It appears to be yet another flimsy, under-managed profile uploaded via GED in the wild-west days of WikiTree... collecting undersourced repetitions of random online trees, with some stale copy-and-paste from Cawley and mutually contradictory sources named which don't actually support the personal preferences we're alleging are authoritative research. That's not cricket.

What am I missing?

posted by Isaac Taylor
Monica, there was a lengthy discussion back in 2002 on SGM with regard to Beauchamp and Braose. Agreement is that the husband here, William, did marry Maud de Braose. There is disagreement as to whether Maud was the daughter of William de Braose or his son Philip (as we have it). The dates seem to support Philip as her father. Feel free to research and, if you find something, start a G2G post with your information/theories.
Lots of Mauds in the Braose family and I think this one needs some work.

Not the same Maud who married Roger Mortimer. She was dau. of Eve Marshal. See wiki [1] Also not the Maud who married John de Brampton. She was dau. of William and Bertha, see wiki for Bertha [2] Prob. not the daughter of Philip whose wiki does not mention a daughter Maud. [3] Burke does have a Maud as wife of a William Beauchamp, but she was removed from the 2nd ed of Cokayne's Peerage though she was in the first, suggesting that there was a problem there. Needs a good sort out. Can we track down any contemporary references for this family?

posted by Monica Edmunds
De Braiose-37 and Braose-52 appear to represent the same person because: same person
posted by Doug Lockwood