GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-05 > 0990747094
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Coats of arms-Brocas
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:31:34 -0700
Have you consulted the Brocas book? It might help, if you haven't.
Kay Allen AG
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> Thanks, Paul, for the good advice. The Brocas family were based in
> Hampshire, so that is why they are not in the Yorks. Visitations.
> It may help if the 3 generations are outlined.
> 1.Sir Bernard Brocas of Beaurepaire, Hants.(1327-1395)
> + 1. (by 1349) Agnes Vavasour div. 1360
> 2. Bernard Brocas (1350-1400)
> + Joan de Midleton (d.1427) da. of Sir Thomas Midleton
> 3.William Brocas (c1379-1456)
> + (1398) Sibyl
> + (1414) Joan Sandys da. of Sir Walter Sandys
> + 2. Mary des Roches, da & heir of Sir John Roches (d.1380)
> + 3. Katherine Plaunk (d.1398)
> I don't think that there can be much doubt that Bernard was not son of Agnes
> Vavasour. His son William was born abt 1479, only having attained his
> majority in 1400 at his father's death, (Roskell, v.2, p.363) so it is
> chronologically unlikely for him to be grandson of Mary des Roches as she
> and Sir Bernard weren't married until 1361.
> Sir Bernard appears to have had a lot of influence - he was a knight of the
> royal chamber of Edward III, and witness to a property transaction from
> Edward to Alice Perrers, indicating a level of intimacy with the king. He
> received many favours from him, and continued in favour under Richard II.
> When he died in 1395, he was buried with much pomp and ceremony in the
> chapel of St Edmund in Westminster Abbey near the royal tombs.
> William Brocas, his grandson sold off the Yorkshire estates after the death
> of his mother, Mary Midleton in 1427 (Roskell, v.2, p.363) but inherited
> some des Roches property too, as Roches Court manor is listed in his IPM.
> Seems like he had the best of both worlds and was eventual heir to both
> Agnes Vavasour and Mary des Roches. Where the greater part of Mary's
> property went, (eight manors in Hampshire and one in Dorset) I don't know -
> perhaps she had issue by her first husband.
> The logical conclusion is that either the des Roches arms were incorporated
> with the Brocas arms by royal grant or because by whatever means William was
> actually heir to Mary de Roches, but not by blood
> John Carmi Parsons has said that marshalling of arms was not fixed at this
> time and the practices revealed with regards to the Brocas family seem to
> bear this out. Later on it must have been inconceivable that a man could
> bear the arms of a step grandmother. This is probably why 16th and 17th
> century Visitations attribute Mary des Roches as mother of Bernard Brocas
> which has resulted in great confusion since. As Bob Baxter mentioned, he
> found " a Visitation of 1686 gives Bernard two sons named Bernard, Senior
> and Junior. But gives them both as sons of Mary de Roches without ever
> mentioning the Vavasour marriage. Senior inherits" . This was clearly an
> attempt to explain the conflicting information given by the heraldry.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Reedpcgen" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Coats of arms-Brocas
> > >Sir Bernard and Agnes were married by 1349 and I have a birth date for
> > >Bernard Brocas jnr as 1350,
> > I should remark that heraldic practice in England was not as firmly
> > at this period as we might think, and that there are a nubmer of cases
> > this period that are confusing when coupled with provable fact.
> > I think the best course of action would be to see if there are entries in
> > conteporary heraldic rolls (many new compilations are in print for
> England), or
> > documents with seals on them from that period (e.g., EYC, YAJ, YAS) which
> > verify what was used by that family in that generation (if you are relying
> > much later visitations [I do not see Brocas in Visitations of the North,
> > 1480-1500, so any other visitation would be much after the fact] and usage
> > the basis of this discussion).
> > pcr