Peter de Brus

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SCOTLAND.htm

[PETER [I] de Brus (-after [1155/65]). “Robertus de Brus” confirmed donations to the canons of Bridlington by charter dated to [1120/35], witnessed by “…Ernaldus de Perceio…Petrus de Brus…”[922]. “Robertus de Brus” donated property to St Mary’s, York by charter dated to [1125/35], witnessed by “Ada filio meo, Petro de Brus…”[923]. Neither of these charters specifies the family relationship between the donor and Peter de Brus. Domesday Descendants suggests that Peter was the son of Robert [I] de Brus[924]. However, the chronology indicates that it is more likely that the two were brothers. “A. de Brus” donated property to the canons of Gysburne/Gisborough, for the souls of “R. de Brus avi mei et A. patris mei”, by charter dated to [1155/65], witnessed by “Petro de Brus…”[925].

[m firstly ---. No evidence has been found of this supposed first marriage. However, considering the likely age of Peter [I] de Brus, it is unlikely that his marriage to Agnes d’Aumâle was his first.

m [secondly] (after 1151) as her second husband, AGNES d'Aumâle, widow of WILLIAM de Roumare, daughter of ETIENNE de Blois Comte d'Aumâle & his wife Hawise de Mortimer.  A manuscript history of the foundation of Melsa Abbey records that “Willielmus” had “sorores quatuor, filias Stephani” who married “una…vicedomino de Pynkeney, altera…vicedomino de Verberay, tertia…Bertanno de Brikebet, quarta Willielmo de Romare et postea Petro de Brus”[926].  Secondary sources often indicate that Agnes’s husband was in fact Adam [I] de Brus.  This conclusion is based not only on the assumption that the manuscript history mistook "Petro" for "Adam", but also that it reversed the order of Agnes’s marriages: the birth date of Isabel, daughter of Adam [II] de Brus (son of Adam [I]), estimated to [1168/70] on the basis of her first marriage in [1180], suggests the likelihood that Adam [II] was born before 1143 (approximate date of Agnes’s marriage to William de Roumare) rather than after 1151 (date of death of William de Roumare).  As a general principle, it appears preferable to find ways of confirming that a primary source is factually correct rather than justifying why it is in error.  No other primary source has yet been identified which names Agnes as the wife of Adam, or as the mother of his children.  In addition, as noted above, Peter [I] de Brus was named in a charter dated to [1155/65].  It is therefore possible that the manuscript history is factually correct and that Agnes d’Aumâle married Peter as her second husband, presumably as his second wife considering his likely age by that time.  While waiting for other primary source information to emerge, this appears to be a safer interim conclusion compared with assuming that the manuscript history made two factual errors, relating to the name of Agnes’s Brus husband and to the order of her marriages.] 

---

PETER [I] de Brus

From Medlands

(-after [1155/65]).  “Robertus de Brus” confirmed donations to the canons of Bridlington by charter dated to [1120/35], witnessed by “…Ernaldus de Perceio…Petrus de Brus…”[891].  “Robertus de Brus” donated property to St Mary´s, York by charter dated to [1125/35], witnessed by “Ada filio meo, Petro de Brus…”[892].  Neither of these charters specifies the family relationship between the donor and Peter de Brus.  Domesday Descendants suggests that Peter was the son of Robert [I] de Brus[893].  However, the chronology indicates that it is more likely that the two were brothers.  “A. de Brus” donated property to the canons of Gisburne, for the souls of “R. de Brus avi mei et A. patris mei”, by charter dated to [1155/65], witnessed by “Petro de Brus…”[894].  [m firstly ---.  No evidence has been found of this supposed first marriage.  However, considering the likely age of Peter [I] de Brus, it is unlikely that his marriage to Agnes d´Aumâle was his first.  m [secondly] (after 1151) as her second husband, AGNES d'Aumâle, widow of WILLIAM de Roumare, daughter of ETIENNE de Blois Comte d'Aumâle & his wife Hawise de Mortimer.  A manuscript history of the foundation of Melsa Abbey records that “Willielmus” had “sorores quatuor, filias Stephani” who married “una…vicedomino de Pynkeney, altera…vicedomino de Verberay, tertia…Bertanno de Brikebet, quarta Willielmo de Romare et postea Petro de Brus”[895].  Secondary sources often indicate that Agnes´s husband was in fact Adam [I] de Brus.  This conclusion is based not only on the assumption that the manuscript history mistook "Petro" for "Adam", but also that it reversed the order of Agnes´s marriages: the birth date of Isabel, daughter of Adam [II] de Brus (son of Adam [I]), estimated to [1168/70] on the basis of her first marriage in [1180], suggests the likelihood that Adam [II] was born before 1143 (approximate date of Agnes´s marriage to William de Roumare) rather than after 1151 (date of death of William de Roumare).  As a general principle, it appears preferable to find ways of confirming that a primary source is factually correct rather than justifying why it is in error.  No other primary source has yet been identified which names Agnes as the wife of Adam, or as the mother of his children.  In addition, as noted above, Peter [I] de Brus was named in a charter dated to [1155/65].  It is therefore possible that the manuscript history is factually correct and that Agnes d´Aumâle married Peter as her second husband, presumably as his second wife considering his likely age by that time.  While waiting for other primary source information to emerge, this appears to be a safer interim conclusion compared with assuming that the manuscript history made two factual errors, relating to the name of Agnes´s Brus husband and to the order of her marriages.]  

---

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SCOTLAND.htm#PeterIBrusdiedafter1155

---

PETER [I] de Brus (-after [1155/65]). “Robertus de Brus” confirmed donations to the canons of Bridlington by charter dated to [1120/35], witnessed by “…Ernaldus de Perceio…Petrus de Brus…”[923]. “Robertus de Brus” donated property to St Mary’s, York by charter dated to [1125/35], witnessed by “Ada filio meo, Petro de Brus…”[924]. Neither of these charters specifies the family relationship between the donor and Peter de Brus. Domesday Descendants suggests that Peter was the son of Robert [I] de Brus[925]. However, the chronology indicates that it is more likely that the two were brothers. “A. de Brus” donated property to the canons of Gysburne/Gisborough, for the souls of “R. de Brus avi mei et A. patris mei”, by charter dated to [1155/65], witnessed by “Petro de Brus…”[926]. [m firstly ---. No evidence has been found of this supposed first marriage. However, considering the likely age of Peter [I] de Brus, it is unlikely that his marriage to Agnes d’Aumâle was his first. m [secondly] (after 1151) as her second husband, AGNES d'Aumâle, widow of WILLIAM de Roumare, daughter of ETIENNE de Blois Comte d'Aumâle & his wife Hawise de Mortimer. A manuscript history of the foundation of Melsa Abbey records that “Willielmus” had “sorores quatuor, filias Stephani” who married “una…vicedomino de Pynkeney, altera…vicedomino de Verberay, tertia…Bertanno de Brikebet, quarta Willielmo de Romare et postea Petro de Brus”[927]. Secondary sources often indicate that Agnes’s husband was in fact Adam [I] de Brus. This conclusion is based not only on the assumption that the manuscript history mistook "Petro" for "Adam", but also that it reversed the order of Agnes’s marriages: the birth date of Isabel, daughter of Adam [II] de Brus (son of Adam [I]), estimated to [1168/70] on the basis of her first marriage in [1180], suggests the likelihood that Adam [II] was born before 1143 (approximate date of Agnes’s marriage to William de Roumare) rather than after 1151 (date of death of William de Roumare). As a general principle, it appears preferable to find ways of confirming that a primary source is factually correct rather than justifying why it is in error. No other primary source has yet been identified which names Agnes as the wife of Adam, or as the mother of his children. In addition, as noted above, Peter [I] de Brus was named in a charter dated to [1155/65]. It is therefore possible that the manuscript history is factually correct and that Agnes d’Aumâle married Peter as her second husband, presumably as his second wife considering his likely age by that time. While waiting for other primary source information to emerge, this appears to be a safer interim conclusion compared with assuming that the manuscript history made two factual errors, relating to the name of Agnes’s Brus husband and to the order of her marriages.]