CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rotherfiel
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Chris Phillips
CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rotherfiel
The Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society has generously made
available a number of articles from the early volumes of its journal,
Oxoniensia, on its website:
http://oahs.org.uk/online_contents.htm
One of these I stumbled across with the help of Google is "The Arms on the
Chaucer Tomb at Ewelme with a note on the early manorial history of the
parish", by E. A. Greening Lamborn, from vol. 5 (1940):
http://oahs.org.uk/oxo/vol%205/Lamborn.doc
Among the arms on the tomb of Thomas Chaucer discussed in the article, are
these:
"23. Barry silver and azure a bendlet gules, Grey of Rotherfield, impaling
Burghersh of Ewelme."
Lamborn's comment is as follows:
"This shield is of special interest and importance as providing contemporary
evidence, hitherto unnoticed, for the suggestion in the Complete Peerage,
vi, 147, that Maud, wife of John, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, ob. 1375,
was daughter of Bartholomew, Lord Burghersh, and sister of Joan, Lady Mohun
(No. 20). The barry coat serves as a reminder that an heraldic pun may be
concealed not merely, as Planche noted, in out-of-the-way charges but even
in the simple ordinaries: the bars are intended to suggest steps, Latin
gradus; and the leaning bendlet adopted as a difference by the Rotherfield
branch of the Greys emphasizes the allusion. In the crest, a scaling ladder,
French gre, the pun is more obvious."
If I understand correctly, Joan, Lady Mohun, and Maud, Lady Grey, would be
placed as first cousins of Thomas Chaucer's father-in-law John Burghersh
(John's father, John, being the younger brother of Joan's father
Bartholomew).
Chris Phillips
available a number of articles from the early volumes of its journal,
Oxoniensia, on its website:
http://oahs.org.uk/online_contents.htm
One of these I stumbled across with the help of Google is "The Arms on the
Chaucer Tomb at Ewelme with a note on the early manorial history of the
parish", by E. A. Greening Lamborn, from vol. 5 (1940):
http://oahs.org.uk/oxo/vol%205/Lamborn.doc
Among the arms on the tomb of Thomas Chaucer discussed in the article, are
these:
"23. Barry silver and azure a bendlet gules, Grey of Rotherfield, impaling
Burghersh of Ewelme."
Lamborn's comment is as follows:
"This shield is of special interest and importance as providing contemporary
evidence, hitherto unnoticed, for the suggestion in the Complete Peerage,
vi, 147, that Maud, wife of John, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, ob. 1375,
was daughter of Bartholomew, Lord Burghersh, and sister of Joan, Lady Mohun
(No. 20). The barry coat serves as a reminder that an heraldic pun may be
concealed not merely, as Planche noted, in out-of-the-way charges but even
in the simple ordinaries: the bars are intended to suggest steps, Latin
gradus; and the leaning bendlet adopted as a difference by the Rotherfield
branch of the Greys emphasizes the allusion. In the crest, a scaling ladder,
French gre, the pun is more obvious."
If I understand correctly, Joan, Lady Mohun, and Maud, Lady Grey, would be
placed as first cousins of Thomas Chaucer's father-in-law John Burghersh
(John's father, John, being the younger brother of Joan's father
Bartholomew).
Chris Phillips
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Dear Chris
Many thanks for posting this new online resource and the extract from
Lamborne's interesting article on the Ewelme tombs. It is certainly a
significant find and the strongest piece of supporting evidence for
Maud's identification yet. There is one point which could be made and
that is if Maud is sister of Joan de Burghersh, then her parents were
Lord Bartholomew de Burghersh and Elizabeth de Verdun who technically
did not bear the arms of Burghersh of Ewelme. These are descibed as
"Silver a chief gules with a double tailed lion gold" which differed
slightly from the heraldry for Lord Burghersh which was Gu a chief
gules with a double tailed lion rampant argent. With the difference
being merely in the colour it is possible that the Burghersh heraldry
on the Ewelme tomb has been repainted in error.
My understanding of the relationships is that Maud (Burghersh) Grey was
probably aunt of John de Burghersh, father-in-law of Thomas Chaucer,
being sister of John his father. John II de Burghersh' parents (John de
Berghersh and Maud de Kerdeston) died in their twenties during the
Black Death (John the elder's IPM mentions that Ewelme had been hard
hit by the pestilence), and as John the younger was about 6 at the time
(the inquisition says
the king gave his custody to John de Mohun and
his wife, Joan de Burghersh [CIPM XII no.88]. John de Burghersh later
acted as a feoffee for Joan de Mohun [CIPM XVIII no.1134].
Perhaps it would be as well at this point to mention other family
connections which support this identification. In 1384 Lady Margery
Moleyns, great aunt of John II de Burghersh, father-in-law of Thomas
Chaucer, was godmother to Lady Maud (Burghersh) de Grey's grandson,
Bernard Missenden (proof of age CIPM XIX no.339). Margery was daughter
of Edmund Bacon (from whom Ewelme descended to the Burghersh family)
and Margery Poynings.
John 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield d.1375 and Maud Burghersh had at
least 8 children - John the elder who was married to Isabel Poynings,
John the younger, Bartholomew whose wife was named Philippa, Robert
whose wives were Joan and secondly Elizabeth de la Plaunche, Richard,
Brian who was brother of the Order of St John of Jerusalem and received
20 pounds p.a from William Bardolf, Juliana wife of Edmund Missenden
and secondly Thomas Shelley, and Maud wife of Ralph Hastings and
secondly Sir Ralph Botreaux.
The Poynings family seem to figure quite a bit in the Burghersh
extended family, for when she was only 15 Isabel St John, sister and
coh. of Edmund St John), widow of Sir Henry Burghersh who was brother
of Bartholomew, ?John, Joan, Margaret and Maud, remarried Luke Poynings
after her first husband's death in 1348. Luke was uncle of Isabel wife
of John de Grey son and heir apparent of Lord John de Grey of
Rotherfield and Maud Burghersh.
Hope this is not too confusing.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips wrote:
Many thanks for posting this new online resource and the extract from
Lamborne's interesting article on the Ewelme tombs. It is certainly a
significant find and the strongest piece of supporting evidence for
Maud's identification yet. There is one point which could be made and
that is if Maud is sister of Joan de Burghersh, then her parents were
Lord Bartholomew de Burghersh and Elizabeth de Verdun who technically
did not bear the arms of Burghersh of Ewelme. These are descibed as
"Silver a chief gules with a double tailed lion gold" which differed
slightly from the heraldry for Lord Burghersh which was Gu a chief
gules with a double tailed lion rampant argent. With the difference
being merely in the colour it is possible that the Burghersh heraldry
on the Ewelme tomb has been repainted in error.
My understanding of the relationships is that Maud (Burghersh) Grey was
probably aunt of John de Burghersh, father-in-law of Thomas Chaucer,
being sister of John his father. John II de Burghersh' parents (John de
Berghersh and Maud de Kerdeston) died in their twenties during the
Black Death (John the elder's IPM mentions that Ewelme had been hard
hit by the pestilence), and as John the younger was about 6 at the time
(the inquisition says
his wife, Joan de Burghersh [CIPM XII no.88]. John de Burghersh later
acted as a feoffee for Joan de Mohun [CIPM XVIII no.1134].
Perhaps it would be as well at this point to mention other family
connections which support this identification. In 1384 Lady Margery
Moleyns, great aunt of John II de Burghersh, father-in-law of Thomas
Chaucer, was godmother to Lady Maud (Burghersh) de Grey's grandson,
Bernard Missenden (proof of age CIPM XIX no.339). Margery was daughter
of Edmund Bacon (from whom Ewelme descended to the Burghersh family)
and Margery Poynings.
John 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield d.1375 and Maud Burghersh had at
least 8 children - John the elder who was married to Isabel Poynings,
John the younger, Bartholomew whose wife was named Philippa, Robert
whose wives were Joan and secondly Elizabeth de la Plaunche, Richard,
Brian who was brother of the Order of St John of Jerusalem and received
20 pounds p.a from William Bardolf, Juliana wife of Edmund Missenden
and secondly Thomas Shelley, and Maud wife of Ralph Hastings and
secondly Sir Ralph Botreaux.
The Poynings family seem to figure quite a bit in the Burghersh
extended family, for when she was only 15 Isabel St John, sister and
coh. of Edmund St John), widow of Sir Henry Burghersh who was brother
of Bartholomew, ?John, Joan, Margaret and Maud, remarried Luke Poynings
after her first husband's death in 1348. Luke was uncle of Isabel wife
of John de Grey son and heir apparent of Lord John de Grey of
Rotherfield and Maud Burghersh.
Hope this is not too confusing.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips wrote:
The Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society has generously made
available a number of articles from the early volumes of its journal,
Oxoniensia, on its website:
http://oahs.org.uk/online_contents.htm
One of these I stumbled across with the help of Google is "The Arms on the
Chaucer Tomb at Ewelme with a note on the early manorial history of the
parish", by E. A. Greening Lamborn, from vol. 5 (1940):
http://oahs.org.uk/oxo/vol%205/Lamborn.doc
Among the arms on the tomb of Thomas Chaucer discussed in the article, are
these:
"23. Barry silver and azure a bendlet gules, Grey of Rotherfield, impaling
Burghersh of Ewelme."
Lamborn's comment is as follows:
"This shield is of special interest and importance as providing contemporary
evidence, hitherto unnoticed, for the suggestion in the Complete Peerage,
vi, 147, that Maud, wife of John, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, ob. 1375,
was daughter of Bartholomew, Lord Burghersh, and sister of Joan, Lady Mohun
(No. 20). The barry coat serves as a reminder that an heraldic pun may be
concealed not merely, as Planche noted, in out-of-the-way charges but even
in the simple ordinaries: the bars are intended to suggest steps, Latin
gradus; and the leaning bendlet adopted as a difference by the Rotherfield
branch of the Greys emphasizes the allusion. In the crest, a scaling ladder,
French gre, the pun is more obvious."
If I understand correctly, Joan, Lady Mohun, and Maud, Lady Grey, would be
placed as first cousins of Thomas Chaucer's father-in-law John Burghersh
(John's father, John, being the younger brother of Joan's father
Bartholomew).
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
In message of 1 Jun, "Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I wish I believed in heraldic identifications!
I happen to have a copy of the Dictionary of British Arms, medieval
ordinary, Vol I and it has various arms for various Burghershes:
1. (p. 174) "Lion with forked tail" (no colours as the references on
this page are mostly to seals) for both a Bartholomew de Burghersh
and a John or two.
2. (p. 177) "Gules a lion with forked tail gold" for both a John and a
Bartholomew Burghersh.
3. (p. 210) "Gules a lion with forked tail with a label azure" for
Bartholemew Burghershes including a B son of B.
4. (p. 221) "Gules a lion with forked tail a bend azure" three examples
for John Burghershes (or Burwashes, but that is how the name is
pronounced, I believe).
The point of these is that none are argent as the principal field.
While I would be the first to agree that all the above references are
secondary, I wonder if there is a reference for the argent field of the
Burghershes of Ewelme.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Many thanks for posting this new online resource and the extract from
Lamborne's interesting article on the Ewelme tombs. It is certainly a
significant find and the strongest piece of supporting evidence for
Maud's identification yet. There is one point which could be made and
that is if Maud is sister of Joan de Burghersh, then her parents were
Lord Bartholomew de Burghersh and Elizabeth de Verdun who technically
did not bear the arms of Burghersh of Ewelme. These are descibed as
"Silver a chief gules with a double tailed lion gold" which differed
slightly from the heraldry for Lord Burghersh which was Gu a chief
gules with a double tailed lion rampant argent. With the difference
being merely in the colour it is possible that the Burghersh heraldry
on the Ewelme tomb has been repainted in error.
I wish I believed in heraldic identifications!
I happen to have a copy of the Dictionary of British Arms, medieval
ordinary, Vol I and it has various arms for various Burghershes:
1. (p. 174) "Lion with forked tail" (no colours as the references on
this page are mostly to seals) for both a Bartholomew de Burghersh
and a John or two.
2. (p. 177) "Gules a lion with forked tail gold" for both a John and a
Bartholomew Burghersh.
3. (p. 210) "Gules a lion with forked tail with a label azure" for
Bartholemew Burghershes including a B son of B.
4. (p. 221) "Gules a lion with forked tail a bend azure" three examples
for John Burghershes (or Burwashes, but that is how the name is
pronounced, I believe).
The point of these is that none are argent as the principal field.
While I would be the first to agree that all the above references are
secondary, I wonder if there is a reference for the argent field of the
Burghershes of Ewelme.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Dear Tim
I've just realised that for the arms for Lord Burghersh that I misread
'ar' for 'or' in Burke's Dormant Peerages (I know, not the best source)
which actually says "Gu, a lion rampant, double quevée, or". Burke's
General Armory, p. 146 says the Burghersh arms are recorded directly
from Newelme [sic] church in the Oxfordshire Visitations " Ar. a chief
gu, over all a lion queve forchée or", giving silver as the principal
field as stated in Lamborn's article.
Cheers
Rosie
I've just realised that for the arms for Lord Burghersh that I misread
'ar' for 'or' in Burke's Dormant Peerages (I know, not the best source)
which actually says "Gu, a lion rampant, double quevée, or". Burke's
General Armory, p. 146 says the Burghersh arms are recorded directly
from Newelme [sic] church in the Oxfordshire Visitations " Ar. a chief
gu, over all a lion queve forchée or", giving silver as the principal
field as stated in Lamborn's article.
Cheers
Rosie
-
Chris Phillips
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Many thanks to Rosie and Tim for their comments.
A great deal of licence seems to have been taken with the heraldry on the
tomb, with maternal arms being used several times in preference to those of
the individual concerned. In one case, the Burghersh arms are impaled by
those of Strange, to represent a marriage between John, Lord Strange of
Knockin, and Maud, daughter of John, Lord Mohun, by Joan Burghersh.
On the difference between the arms of the Lords Burghersh and those of
Burghersh of Ewelme, the author says this:
"The shield of the barons of Burghersh, i.e., Burwash (locally 'Burrish'),
Sussex, bore the double-tailed lion on a field gules; [11] the chief by
which the Ewelme branch differenced it was perhaps derived from the arms of
Bacon from whom they inherited that manor. But on all the shields at Ewelme
on which the Burghersh arms appear the coat of the cadet branch is made to
do duty for the baronial house; and this, as Lee's sketches show, was so
originally.
[11] Complete Peerage, ii, 426; Knights of Edward I, Harl. Soc. lxxx, 163."
If this weren't so, it would be tempting to consider whether the elder John
Burghersh might have had an earlier marriage, of which the Maud who married
John Grey of Rotherfield could have been the daughter (and maybe that's
still worth considering). But the arms of Burghersh of Ewelme are certainly
used on the tomb for Joan, wife of John de Mohun (daughter of the elder
Bartholomew de Burghersh) and for Elizabeth, wife of Edward Despenser
(daughter and heir of the younger Bartholomew).
Rosie wrote:
Thanks for raising the question of where the Burghershes of Ewelme fit into
the family of the Lords Burghersh.
I must admit I followed what was said in the article without checking other
sources - the article makes the elder John Burghersh a brother of the elder
Bartholomew, which places him a generation further back than Rosie's
suggestion. I must say that Rosie's suggestion does seem a much better fit
chronologically, with the younger John Burghersh being born in 1343 [CP vii
194] and the elder Bartholomew marrying before 1320, and having a son and
heir born in 1329 or before (probably _considerably_ before, according to
CP) [CP ii 426].
However, Lamborn does have some specific evidence bearing on this question:
"The relationship is clear from a suit of 1408 in which Maud Chaucer and her
sister Margaret sue and recover as 'co-heirs of John, son of John, heir of
Henry Burghersh' who was Bishop of Lincoln and brother of Bartholomew, Lord
Burghersh, by the purchase of Maud's marriage by John, Lord Mohun, for £l00
paid to the receiver-general of the Duchy of Lancaster, and by the grant to
Lord Burghersh and subsequently to his daughter Joan Mohun of the keeping of
the manor of Ewelme during the minority of the heir of John Burghersh. [13]
[13] Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1354-8, p. 322 ; D.N.B., s.n. Thomas Chaucer."
I don't see how the purchase of Maud's marriage or the grants of the keeping
of Ewelme help us to work out the specific relationship, but the description
of Maud and Margaret as 'co-heirs of John, son of John, heir of Henry
Burghersh' certainly looks like a clue. But unfortunately Lamborn doesn't
spell it out. (The original DNB article does refer to Maud's father John as
nephew of Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln - consistent with Lamborn's
version - but doesn't appear to give any evidence for this, and the
reference is removed in the new revised edition.)
It is difficult to see how Maud's grandfather John could have been heir of
any Henry Burghersh, if John was the younger brother of Bartholomew de
Burghersh the younger (d. 1369), whose daughter was living in 1408.
On the other hand, it's equally unclear how he could have been the heir of
Henry if he was the younger brother of Bartholomew the elder (d. 1355) - why
wouldn't the heirship again have passed down the senior line?
There is perhaps a kind of clue in the CP article on Mohun [ix 23 note h],
where there is a reference from 1334 to Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh being
the half-brother of [Henry Burghersh] the Bishop of Lincoln. If Bartholomew
the elder were only a half-brother of Henry, he would be excluded as his
heir, and therefore John, as a younger brother, could be Henry's heir.
(Actually, the brief extract quoted by Lamborn doesn't specify the
relationship between Henry and John, so perhaps he could equally have been a
nephew?)
But this statement about Bartholomew and Henry being half-brothers is
difficult to reconcile with the CP account [ii 425, 426], which has
Bartholomew's mother, Maud Badlesmere, surviving at least until January
1305/6, and her husband dying later the same year. The new DNB article on
Henry de Burghersh also makes him a son of Maud, and in fact suggests he may
have been older than Bartholomew.
In short, although the evidence presented by Lamborn does tend to strengthen
the case for the wife of John Grey being a Burghersh, and also provides an
important clue as to how the Burghershes of Ewelme are related to the Lords
Burghersh, there remain quite a lot of questions to be resolved.
Chris Phillips
A great deal of licence seems to have been taken with the heraldry on the
tomb, with maternal arms being used several times in preference to those of
the individual concerned. In one case, the Burghersh arms are impaled by
those of Strange, to represent a marriage between John, Lord Strange of
Knockin, and Maud, daughter of John, Lord Mohun, by Joan Burghersh.
On the difference between the arms of the Lords Burghersh and those of
Burghersh of Ewelme, the author says this:
"The shield of the barons of Burghersh, i.e., Burwash (locally 'Burrish'),
Sussex, bore the double-tailed lion on a field gules; [11] the chief by
which the Ewelme branch differenced it was perhaps derived from the arms of
Bacon from whom they inherited that manor. But on all the shields at Ewelme
on which the Burghersh arms appear the coat of the cadet branch is made to
do duty for the baronial house; and this, as Lee's sketches show, was so
originally.
[11] Complete Peerage, ii, 426; Knights of Edward I, Harl. Soc. lxxx, 163."
If this weren't so, it would be tempting to consider whether the elder John
Burghersh might have had an earlier marriage, of which the Maud who married
John Grey of Rotherfield could have been the daughter (and maybe that's
still worth considering). But the arms of Burghersh of Ewelme are certainly
used on the tomb for Joan, wife of John de Mohun (daughter of the elder
Bartholomew de Burghersh) and for Elizabeth, wife of Edward Despenser
(daughter and heir of the younger Bartholomew).
Rosie wrote:
My understanding of the relationships is that Maud (Burghersh) Grey was
probably aunt of John de Burghersh, father-in-law of Thomas Chaucer,
being sister of John his father. John II de Burghersh' parents (John de
Berghersh and Maud de Kerdeston) died in their twenties during the
Black Death (John the elder's IPM mentions that Ewelme had been hard
hit by the pestilence), and as John the younger was about 6 at the time
(the inquisition saysthe king gave his custody to John de Mohun and
his wife, Joan de Burghersh [CIPM XII no.88]. John de Burghersh later
acted as a feoffee for Joan de Mohun [CIPM XVIII no.1134].
Thanks for raising the question of where the Burghershes of Ewelme fit into
the family of the Lords Burghersh.
I must admit I followed what was said in the article without checking other
sources - the article makes the elder John Burghersh a brother of the elder
Bartholomew, which places him a generation further back than Rosie's
suggestion. I must say that Rosie's suggestion does seem a much better fit
chronologically, with the younger John Burghersh being born in 1343 [CP vii
194] and the elder Bartholomew marrying before 1320, and having a son and
heir born in 1329 or before (probably _considerably_ before, according to
CP) [CP ii 426].
However, Lamborn does have some specific evidence bearing on this question:
"The relationship is clear from a suit of 1408 in which Maud Chaucer and her
sister Margaret sue and recover as 'co-heirs of John, son of John, heir of
Henry Burghersh' who was Bishop of Lincoln and brother of Bartholomew, Lord
Burghersh, by the purchase of Maud's marriage by John, Lord Mohun, for £l00
paid to the receiver-general of the Duchy of Lancaster, and by the grant to
Lord Burghersh and subsequently to his daughter Joan Mohun of the keeping of
the manor of Ewelme during the minority of the heir of John Burghersh. [13]
[13] Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1354-8, p. 322 ; D.N.B., s.n. Thomas Chaucer."
I don't see how the purchase of Maud's marriage or the grants of the keeping
of Ewelme help us to work out the specific relationship, but the description
of Maud and Margaret as 'co-heirs of John, son of John, heir of Henry
Burghersh' certainly looks like a clue. But unfortunately Lamborn doesn't
spell it out. (The original DNB article does refer to Maud's father John as
nephew of Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln - consistent with Lamborn's
version - but doesn't appear to give any evidence for this, and the
reference is removed in the new revised edition.)
It is difficult to see how Maud's grandfather John could have been heir of
any Henry Burghersh, if John was the younger brother of Bartholomew de
Burghersh the younger (d. 1369), whose daughter was living in 1408.
On the other hand, it's equally unclear how he could have been the heir of
Henry if he was the younger brother of Bartholomew the elder (d. 1355) - why
wouldn't the heirship again have passed down the senior line?
There is perhaps a kind of clue in the CP article on Mohun [ix 23 note h],
where there is a reference from 1334 to Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh being
the half-brother of [Henry Burghersh] the Bishop of Lincoln. If Bartholomew
the elder were only a half-brother of Henry, he would be excluded as his
heir, and therefore John, as a younger brother, could be Henry's heir.
(Actually, the brief extract quoted by Lamborn doesn't specify the
relationship between Henry and John, so perhaps he could equally have been a
nephew?)
But this statement about Bartholomew and Henry being half-brothers is
difficult to reconcile with the CP account [ii 425, 426], which has
Bartholomew's mother, Maud Badlesmere, surviving at least until January
1305/6, and her husband dying later the same year. The new DNB article on
Henry de Burghersh also makes him a son of Maud, and in fact suggests he may
have been older than Bartholomew.
In short, although the evidence presented by Lamborn does tend to strengthen
the case for the wife of John Grey being a Burghersh, and also provides an
important clue as to how the Burghershes of Ewelme are related to the Lords
Burghersh, there remain quite a lot of questions to be resolved.
Chris Phillips
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Thanks again, Chris
It's difficult to understand the law suit from 1408 without the context
of the record but I would think that any statement about any
inheritance from Henry, Bishop of Lincoln must be a contrived argument,
as Henry's IPM [CIPM 8, no. 288] states that his heir at law was Walter
Pavely, grandson of Henry's elder brother, Stephen Burghersh. However
Henry's whole estate had effectively been enfeoffed and granted to
Henry for life with remainder to Bartholomew de Burghersh, his brother,
and his heirs.
I doubt that Henry and Bartholomew were half brothers for in 1329 Henry
received the reversion of the manors of Heytesbury, Stert and Colerne
and other parcels of land in Wiltshire then held for life by Margaret
de Badlesmere, with remainder to his brother Bartholomew. They were
settled on Henry by his feoffees in 1334 after her death [Pat Rolls
1385-1389, p.411]. When Heytesbury etc came into the hands of
Bartholomew on Henry's death in 1340 he immediately settled it on
himself with remainders to his sons Bartholomew, Henry and Thomas [C.R
Elrington, 'Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Wiltshire for the
reign of Edward III' (Devizes, 1974) no.276]. The lack of mention of a
John does indicate that he was not son of Bartholomew and so I concur
that it appears that John de Burghersh the elder is most likely to have
been brother or nephew of Bartholomew the elder and bishop Henry.
Incidentally the heraldry on the tomb at Ewelme, including that of Grey
of Rotherfield/Burghersh, is also described at length on pp. 38-42, 83
in The Visitation of the County of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 (London,
1871) (Harleian Soc. Pub. vol 5).
Cheers
Rosie
It's difficult to understand the law suit from 1408 without the context
of the record but I would think that any statement about any
inheritance from Henry, Bishop of Lincoln must be a contrived argument,
as Henry's IPM [CIPM 8, no. 288] states that his heir at law was Walter
Pavely, grandson of Henry's elder brother, Stephen Burghersh. However
Henry's whole estate had effectively been enfeoffed and granted to
Henry for life with remainder to Bartholomew de Burghersh, his brother,
and his heirs.
I doubt that Henry and Bartholomew were half brothers for in 1329 Henry
received the reversion of the manors of Heytesbury, Stert and Colerne
and other parcels of land in Wiltshire then held for life by Margaret
de Badlesmere, with remainder to his brother Bartholomew. They were
settled on Henry by his feoffees in 1334 after her death [Pat Rolls
1385-1389, p.411]. When Heytesbury etc came into the hands of
Bartholomew on Henry's death in 1340 he immediately settled it on
himself with remainders to his sons Bartholomew, Henry and Thomas [C.R
Elrington, 'Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Wiltshire for the
reign of Edward III' (Devizes, 1974) no.276]. The lack of mention of a
John does indicate that he was not son of Bartholomew and so I concur
that it appears that John de Burghersh the elder is most likely to have
been brother or nephew of Bartholomew the elder and bishop Henry.
Incidentally the heraldry on the tomb at Ewelme, including that of Grey
of Rotherfield/Burghersh, is also described at length on pp. 38-42, 83
in The Visitation of the County of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 (London,
1871) (Harleian Soc. Pub. vol 5).
Cheers
Rosie
-
Chris Phillips
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Rosie Bevan wrote:
Many thanks for providing firmer evidence than the second-hand fragments I
had been trying to piece together.
I found a little more information about Henry in an online review of "The
Registers of Henry Burghersh, 1320-1342", vol. 1, ed. Nicholas Bennett
(Lincoln Record Society, 1999), by Roy Martin Haines [English Historical
Review, June 2000]. The reviewer presents his own abstract of the entry
relating to Henry's foundation of a chantry in Lincoln Cathedral:
"Among beneficiaries of the chantry were Isabella, Edward III and Queen
Philippa -- conspicuously not Edward II -- also Burghersh's father, Robert,
his mother Matilda, sister of Bartholomew Badlesmere, his brother
Bartholomew, and three sisters. After mention of his uncle, Bartholomew
Badlesmere, comes another list of the bishop's (deceased?) siblings, five
brothers and two sisters, followed by `et quorumcumque parentum
consanguineorum et benefactorum nostrorum'. The first brother, Stephen,
Robert Burghersh's heir, had died by 1310, long before the chantry's
foundation in 1332. Genealogical clarification is required at this point."
This must be the source of the latter part of this statement in the new DNB
biography of Henry by Nicholas Bennett:
"He was one of a large family: in 1332 he had one surviving brother,
Bartholomew Burghersh (d. 1355), and three surviving sisters, Katherine,
Margaret, and Joan, but a further five brothers (Stephen, Robert, Reginald,
Guncelin, and John) and two sisters (Juliana and Cecily) had already died by
that date."
So there seems to be no doubt that all the brothers were children of the
same marriage. There is a brother John, but if Bennett's interpretation is
correct, he was dead by 1332, and could not be the elder John Burghersh of
Ewelme, who did not die until 1349.
It's to be hoped that in the light of the other evidence, the full details
from the suit of 1408 would give us a clue where the elder John fits into
the family. Unfortunately Lamborn doesn't give a reference for it. I hope it
will turn up in one of the secondary sources he cites.
Chris Phillips
It's difficult to understand the law suit from 1408 without the context
of the record but I would think that any statement about any
inheritance from Henry, Bishop of Lincoln must be a contrived argument,
as Henry's IPM [CIPM 8, no. 288] states that his heir at law was Walter
Pavely, grandson of Henry's elder brother, Stephen Burghersh. However
Henry's whole estate had effectively been enfeoffed and granted to
Henry for life with remainder to Bartholomew de Burghersh, his brother,
and his heirs.
I doubt that Henry and Bartholomew were half brothers for in 1329 Henry
received the reversion of the manors of Heytesbury, Stert and Colerne
and other parcels of land in Wiltshire then held for life by Margaret
de Badlesmere, with remainder to his brother Bartholomew. They were
settled on Henry by his feoffees in 1334 after her death [Pat Rolls
1385-1389, p.411]. When Heytesbury etc came into the hands of
Bartholomew on Henry's death in 1340 he immediately settled it on
himself with remainders to his sons Bartholomew, Henry and Thomas [C.R
Elrington, 'Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Wiltshire for the
reign of Edward III' (Devizes, 1974) no.276]. The lack of mention of a
John does indicate that he was not son of Bartholomew and so I concur
that it appears that John de Burghersh the elder is most likely to have
been brother or nephew of Bartholomew the elder and bishop Henry.
Many thanks for providing firmer evidence than the second-hand fragments I
had been trying to piece together.
I found a little more information about Henry in an online review of "The
Registers of Henry Burghersh, 1320-1342", vol. 1, ed. Nicholas Bennett
(Lincoln Record Society, 1999), by Roy Martin Haines [English Historical
Review, June 2000]. The reviewer presents his own abstract of the entry
relating to Henry's foundation of a chantry in Lincoln Cathedral:
"Among beneficiaries of the chantry were Isabella, Edward III and Queen
Philippa -- conspicuously not Edward II -- also Burghersh's father, Robert,
his mother Matilda, sister of Bartholomew Badlesmere, his brother
Bartholomew, and three sisters. After mention of his uncle, Bartholomew
Badlesmere, comes another list of the bishop's (deceased?) siblings, five
brothers and two sisters, followed by `et quorumcumque parentum
consanguineorum et benefactorum nostrorum'. The first brother, Stephen,
Robert Burghersh's heir, had died by 1310, long before the chantry's
foundation in 1332. Genealogical clarification is required at this point."
This must be the source of the latter part of this statement in the new DNB
biography of Henry by Nicholas Bennett:
"He was one of a large family: in 1332 he had one surviving brother,
Bartholomew Burghersh (d. 1355), and three surviving sisters, Katherine,
Margaret, and Joan, but a further five brothers (Stephen, Robert, Reginald,
Guncelin, and John) and two sisters (Juliana and Cecily) had already died by
that date."
So there seems to be no doubt that all the brothers were children of the
same marriage. There is a brother John, but if Bennett's interpretation is
correct, he was dead by 1332, and could not be the elder John Burghersh of
Ewelme, who did not die until 1349.
It's to be hoped that in the light of the other evidence, the full details
from the suit of 1408 would give us a clue where the elder John fits into
the family. Unfortunately Lamborn doesn't give a reference for it. I hope it
will turn up in one of the secondary sources he cites.
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
In message of 2 Jun, "Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
<snip>
Very interesting and certainly confirms, twice, the "Argent a chief
gules over all a lion rampant queue fourchée or" for the Burghersh arms.
As interesting is the fact on p. 38 the tomb is said to be that of Alice
Chauces, sometime duchess of Suffolk, yet the arms are clearly those of
her son John who married Elizabeth Plantagenet. Even more interesting is
that Elizabeth's arms are recorded as the undifferenced royal arms when her
father had never even been king. And in 1541 Elizabeth's niece, Margaret
Plantagenet, was executed ostensibly and in part for possessing a tunic with
the undifferenced royal arms on it. So I wonder if the sculptor/painters quite
knew what they were doing?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
Incidentally the heraldry on the tomb at Ewelme, including that of Grey
of Rotherfield/Burghersh, is also described at length on pp. 38-42, 83
in The Visitation of the County of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 (London,
1871) (Harleian Soc. Pub. vol 5).
Very interesting and certainly confirms, twice, the "Argent a chief
gules over all a lion rampant queue fourchée or" for the Burghersh arms.
As interesting is the fact on p. 38 the tomb is said to be that of Alice
Chauces, sometime duchess of Suffolk, yet the arms are clearly those of
her son John who married Elizabeth Plantagenet. Even more interesting is
that Elizabeth's arms are recorded as the undifferenced royal arms when her
father had never even been king. And in 1541 Elizabeth's niece, Margaret
Plantagenet, was executed ostensibly and in part for possessing a tunic with
the undifferenced royal arms on it. So I wonder if the sculptor/painters quite
knew what they were doing?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: CP Addition: Maud, the wife of John, Lord Grey of Rother
Thanks very much for posting this detailed information - it may be
worth trawling through the bishop's registers to see whether there is
more information to be found on John. A search of the National Archives
online catalogue has revealed no mention of the 1408 law suit.
Interesting to see the name Juliana occurring in the Burghersh family
as it was the name give to a daughter of John and Maud de Grey. It was
Juliana's son whose godmother was Margery Bacon.
Cheers
Rosie
worth trawling through the bishop's registers to see whether there is
more information to be found on John. A search of the National Archives
online catalogue has revealed no mention of the 1408 law suit.
Interesting to see the name Juliana occurring in the Burghersh family
as it was the name give to a daughter of John and Maud de Grey. It was
Juliana's son whose godmother was Margery Bacon.
Cheers
Rosie