Talk:William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber

de Burgh(?)
"Instead, he evidently wanted to break de Burgh, and to that end invaded Wales to seize the de Braose domains there."

Is the "de Burgh" here a typo for de Braose or does it refer to Hubert de Burgh? If it refers to Hubert, the connection should be explained. Rhion 11:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No reply so I've changed it to "de Braose". Rhion 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

7th Baron Abergavenny
Seventh baron?? Where does this come from? Cokayne's Complete Peerage makes this William de Braose the 11th Baron Abergavenny. But this title does not appear in any contemporary documents anyway and does not seem an appropriate way to reference this man. There seems to be no consisitent way of differentiating between the several Williams de Braose on Wikipedia. Perhaps a date should be used? How about William de Braose (died 1211)? --Doug (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is based on who was the feudal baron of Abergavenny in the line of succession (or inheritance): Baron Abergavenny, depending on who was granted the land of Abergavenny by the King of England. However, it's not 100% etched in stone, officially. More thorough researches are needed on who were the actual feudal barons of Abergavenny between the mid-11th century to late 12th century. Few may have been unofficially recognized or titled as the Baron of Abergavenny or the succession was passed onto a male heir as a hereditary right (or by right of a baron's wife). My consistent source has been following the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy website, by following the heirs of William de Braose/Briouse. Hope that help you out. Sundehul 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no dispute that this William was Lord of Abergavenny. The question is twofold. 1) What line of succession makes him seventh baron? 2) Is this an appropriate way to distinguish between the several Williams de Braose?

The FMG site doesn't use this title. Who does?? I think we should find a better way of distinguishing these men. --Doug (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I posted yesterday, more thorough researches on who were these men regarded as the actual feudal barons of Abergavenny, whether in an official or unofficial capacity. I think few of these men may have been either usurpers or possibly confusing with another feudal barony of nearby lands or the name in itself. Yes, FMG don't use numbered titles, they just followed and published what were written from the original documents and posted them online, without the modern numbering of these royal and noble peerages for record-keeping and historic research purposes. Also bear in mind that some of these feudal barons have same name, as it is medieval customary to name sons after fathers (or grandfathers in some cases). If we exclude the numbering and title of these men as feudal barons, we would end up debating and discussing too much about which guy was a feudal baron of this land at that time, which family branch he or she is from and so forth.


 * You're right we need to figure out a way to distinguish these men and add the right number/title to each one. It would, however, depend on how much sources and informations we can gleam from on each one of the feudal barons. The question is... do you know more or less about this man or that man that I don't know yet? Sundehul 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do know more than most people about these men. I have made a serious study of just this family for a little over ten years and there's not much written about any of them in the last 900 years that I haven't read! There are no difficulties on identifying who is who and the descent of the lordship of Abergavenny is well known. The problem is just deciding what to call each man. My problem with this set of Wikipedia articles is that someone, at some time, decided to give them these nth Baron Abergavenny titles and I can't find any good reason how they came up with that choice. The Complete Peerage gives a detailed account of the barons of Abergavenny and is just about the most authoritative source for questions of this type. By their reckoning this William is the 11th baron. My main criticism is that the title used, even if it was corrected to 11th baron, does not help a searcher to get easily to the right William de Braose, whereas William de Braose (died 1211) is specific and identifiable. --Doug (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you try checking out Burke's Peerage for the comparison? I never have seen or read that book nor the Complete Peerage, at least not yet. Whoever came up with the Baron Abergavenny titles on these men probably just followed whatever sources they'd gotten from and assumed the titling of these men based on that sources and the time-line of the successions. Maybe he or she just grasped at straws and hope for whoever out there, perhaps you, may have better informations or sources than he/she'd assumed. It's called improvisation. Good luck on the further researches on de Braose lineage. They're my ancestors. ;) Sundehul 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the page. The title 7th Baron Abergavenny is spurious. See Baron Bergavenny.--Doug (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doug, I'm glad you pointed out that Baron Abergavenny is incorrect. I have since removed all the numbers, and replaced Baron Abergavenny with Lord Abergavenny on all Braose-related articles. Two similar situations are the Irish Lords of Thomond and Lords of Offaly, who were always known as lords, never barons. Thanks for your astuteness.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support on this Jeanne. It's been bugging me for a couple of years now and I finally made the move!--Doug (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the title and numbers were incorrect, you were right to change the articles. I respect your opinions and extensive knowledge of the de Braose family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are TWO Mauds that get starved to death
There's just one. So is she the wife of the person whose article this is - or the wife of his son? The article says both. What a mess. Black Will is either the son or grandson of William III (every other source says grandson), so his grandmother was starved to death by John, not his mother.LéVeillé 03:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

LéVeillé - your comment does not make a lot of sense! Your title is contradicted by your first statement. Maud de St Valéry was starved, wife of the article subject. The article does not say wife of his son. Black William is not mentioned in this article. I think you should read the article again with a little more care and give specific quotes of anything you find questionable. Doug (at Wiki) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Braose arms
I have reverted the change made by Lobsterthermidor. The arms shown for William 2nd Baron Braose are not relevant for this William. The lion rampant arms were only adopted by William 1st Baron Braose. In fact, in the early part of his life he used the earlier Braose arms, as shown on one of his seals. These earlier arms, sometimes known as Braose of Brecknock were carried by Reginald and Giles, sons of William, 4th Lord. But the only arms actually ascribed to him in near contemporary documents are those shown by Matthew Paris. Doug (at Wiki) 12:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive revert. Let's get to the bottom of the arms question and show the right ones for each article. Can you provide sources for your information for this purpose?, i.e. image of the seal you refer to etc. That would be a useful addition. What is your source for the "Braose of Brecknock" arms, which I assume are the ones shown above. I will add your assertions to the article which I have expanded House of Braose. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm afraid it's not possible to show "right" arms for most of these Braoses. As far as Wikipedia is concerned we can only give information previously published in reliable sources. There is no information for some of these men. The information given in the article for William (4th lord) is that Matthew Paris ascribed the arms to him - not that these were correct! Nobody knows what arms this William carried and Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. No arms are recorded for John de Braose either. You added his grandson's arms to the article which is slightly relevant but it is almost certain that John did not carry these.


 * The seal I refer to is on one of William (1st baron)'s documents in the National Archive. There is no published source.


 * The Braose of Brecknock arms can be found in several forms in Joseph Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry pages 31/33.


 * The inverted arms you show from Matthew Paris refer to William de Braose (d 1230), son of Reginald. The arms with the garbs are in the same Matthew Paris chronicle, a few pages earlier for William (4th lord).


 * The fact is, there are no reliable sources for arms for these people and it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Doug (at Wiki) 00:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say, do you have a catalogue ref. for the seal "The seal I refer to is on one of William (1st baron)'s documents in the National Archive", that would tie things up nicely as far as evidence exists. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC))
 * I haven't got a cat. no. It's not published in a reliable source. The only "evidence" is my original research so it has no place in the Wikipedia article. Doug (at Wiki) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sons John, Giles, Philip and Walter
Hello,

John, Giles, Philip and Walter are the sons listed for this William de Braose. The article names Reginald de Braose as both uncle to John and " middle son" of this William. If he was John's brother then he is William's son. If he is John's Uncle then he is William's brother. Both links to Reginald link to an article on William's son.

So what is correct?

Thanks

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothypaulgallagher (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tim, the article is correct. You have your William de Braoses mixed up!. John Giles Philip and Walter are the sons of a William who was the son of the subject of this article . He died in captivity with his mother in 1210. I have added two extra words to the "lineage" paragraph to make this clearer.Doug (at Wiki) 10:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber
Thanks Doug.

Not sure that make it any clearer but it does help.

Again thanks

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothypaulgallagher (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lordship of Gower for John
The current version of the article (in "The de Braose lineage") claims that John, the article's subject William's grandson, was ceded (for a fee) both the lordship of Gower and Bramber by his uncle Reginald. Except that in John's own article, the lordship of Gower was given to him as part of his dowry when he married Margaret, daughter of Llewylyn the Great, who was the leader of Wales. Unless the lordship of Gower was in dispute between Llewylyn and Reginald (which is possible, because they were at various times fighting with each other over such things), it must be one or the other, not both. I'm removing mention of Gower passing to John in the relevant paragraph. If anyone has any knowledge that supersedes the dowry grant of lordship, please update accordingly. Cyberherbalist (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)