C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
Dear Adrian ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.
The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.
This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
.... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.
There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.
At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.
While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:
1. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Elizabeth Butler.
7. Francis Dade.
8. William Farrer.
9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.
10. Anne Humphrey.
11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.
12. Simon Lynde.
13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
14. John Oxenbridge.
15. Herbert Pelham.
16. William Skepper.
17. John Stockman.
18. John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
< I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
< concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
< holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).
<
< Adrian
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.
The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.
This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
.... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.
There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.
At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.
While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:
1. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Elizabeth Butler.
7. Francis Dade.
8. William Farrer.
9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.
10. Anne Humphrey.
11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.
12. Simon Lynde.
13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
14. John Oxenbridge.
15. Herbert Pelham.
16. William Skepper.
17. John Stockman.
18. John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
< I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
< concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
< holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).
<
< Adrian
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that an
abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
going to http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
"fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the foresaid
Hubert de Burgh).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that an
abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
going to http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
"fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the foresaid
Hubert de Burgh).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear Newsgroup ~
I found my copy of Complete Peerage's account of Hubert de Burgh, Earl
of Kent, just now. The biographical record of Earl Hubert de Burgh is
found in Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133-142 (sub Kent). In the
general account on page 133, it states that Earl Hubert's parentage is
unknown. However, in footnote "a" on the same page, the writer quotes
Blomfield's Norfolk, vol. x, pg. 265, in which Earl Hubert's parents
are identified as "Reyner de Burgh (probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth),
by Joan, one of the three daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir
William Punchard (by Alice, daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry,
lord of Gedney)." It is further stated that there is "no authority but
Blomfield's for this descent."
Strangely, this same Complete Peerage footnote makes reference to the
foundation history of Creake Abbey (which I have cited), which Complete
Peerage says identifies Earl Hubert's brother, Geoffrey de Burgh,
Bishop of Ely, as "nepos of Alice de Nerford, daughter of John Punchard
and widow of Robert de Nerford." The source Complete Peerage uses for
the Creake Abbey foundation history is the Latin version of the
foundation history found in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglican, vol.
vi, pg. 487. Complete Peerage is not fully correct in its
representation of the Creake Abbey history, as Alice, wife of Robert de
Nerford, is there called Alice Pouchard, not Punchard, and her husband
was a knight. Also, Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, is specifically called
the brother of Earl Hubert de Burgh in the text. As such, tthe
parentage of Earl Hubert de Burgh given by Blomfield is certainly
partly supported by the Creake Abbey foundation history, which fact is
obscured by the Complete Peerage footnote.
To add to the confusion, in the same footnote in Complete Peerage, Earl
Hubert de Burgh is stated to have given the advowson of Oulton church,
Norfolk to Walsingham "for the soul of Alice my mother who rests in the
church of Walsingham." But, in another source which I have seen
elsewhere (possibly Blomfield or Ellis), it is stated that the person
buried at Walsingham was actually Hubert's wife, Alice, not his mother.
If so, it would remove a apparent contradictory bit of evidence which
detracts from the descent provided by Blomfield. It would also provide
Earl Hubert with an additional wife not mentioned by Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I found my copy of Complete Peerage's account of Hubert de Burgh, Earl
of Kent, just now. The biographical record of Earl Hubert de Burgh is
found in Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133-142 (sub Kent). In the
general account on page 133, it states that Earl Hubert's parentage is
unknown. However, in footnote "a" on the same page, the writer quotes
Blomfield's Norfolk, vol. x, pg. 265, in which Earl Hubert's parents
are identified as "Reyner de Burgh (probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth),
by Joan, one of the three daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir
William Punchard (by Alice, daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry,
lord of Gedney)." It is further stated that there is "no authority but
Blomfield's for this descent."
Strangely, this same Complete Peerage footnote makes reference to the
foundation history of Creake Abbey (which I have cited), which Complete
Peerage says identifies Earl Hubert's brother, Geoffrey de Burgh,
Bishop of Ely, as "nepos of Alice de Nerford, daughter of John Punchard
and widow of Robert de Nerford." The source Complete Peerage uses for
the Creake Abbey foundation history is the Latin version of the
foundation history found in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglican, vol.
vi, pg. 487. Complete Peerage is not fully correct in its
representation of the Creake Abbey history, as Alice, wife of Robert de
Nerford, is there called Alice Pouchard, not Punchard, and her husband
was a knight. Also, Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, is specifically called
the brother of Earl Hubert de Burgh in the text. As such, tthe
parentage of Earl Hubert de Burgh given by Blomfield is certainly
partly supported by the Creake Abbey foundation history, which fact is
obscured by the Complete Peerage footnote.
To add to the confusion, in the same footnote in Complete Peerage, Earl
Hubert de Burgh is stated to have given the advowson of Oulton church,
Norfolk to Walsingham "for the soul of Alice my mother who rests in the
church of Walsingham." But, in another source which I have seen
elsewhere (possibly Blomfield or Ellis), it is stated that the person
buried at Walsingham was actually Hubert's wife, Alice, not his mother.
If so, it would remove a apparent contradictory bit of evidence which
detracts from the descent provided by Blomfield. It would also provide
Earl Hubert with an additional wife not mentioned by Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson quotes the following from a secondary source implying that
it is valid evidence standing alone. What is the document from which
the following quote is taken? When and by whom was it written? Just
reading the language of "this account of the foundation of Creake
Abbey", one would guess that it is late Victorian; if so, it is no
evidence without the underlying sources.
CED
Dear Adrian ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.
The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.
This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson quotes the following from a secondary source implying that
it is valid evidence standing alone. What is the document from which
the following quote is taken? When and by whom was it written? Just
reading the language of "this account of the foundation of Creake
Abbey", one would guess that it is late Victorian; if so, it is no
evidence without the underlying sources.
CED
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.
There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.
At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.
While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:
1. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Elizabeth Butler.
7. Francis Dade.
8. William Farrer.
9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.
10. Anne Humphrey.
11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.
12. Simon Lynde.
13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
14. John Oxenbridge.
15. Herbert Pelham.
16. William Skepper.
17. John Stockman.
18. John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).
Adrian
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear CED ~
I heartily recommend that you read the transcript of the original Latin
text of the foundation history of Creake Abbey published by William
Dugdale. This document can be found online at http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
I've already provided you the correct volume and page references for
you to consult. To make it real easy for you, I've copied the
references to Dugdale's volume and pages again below for you. If you
don't read Latin, I'll be glad to lend you a hand.
The document makes it clear that Bishop Geoffrey de Burgh (brother of
Earl Hubert de Burgh) was "nepos" to Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert
de Nerford. This record lends support to Blomfield's statement that
Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Joan Punchard, "one of the three
daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir William Punchard."
I doubt Blomfield's assertion, however, that Joan Pouchard's mother was
a daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
I believe he is wrong about that part of it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
Douglas Richardson wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that
an
< abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
< Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
< Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
< going to http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
<
< The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
< Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
< nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
< "fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the
foresaid
< Hubert de Burgh).
<
< Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I heartily recommend that you read the transcript of the original Latin
text of the foundation history of Creake Abbey published by William
Dugdale. This document can be found online at http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
I've already provided you the correct volume and page references for
you to consult. To make it real easy for you, I've copied the
references to Dugdale's volume and pages again below for you. If you
don't read Latin, I'll be glad to lend you a hand.
The document makes it clear that Bishop Geoffrey de Burgh (brother of
Earl Hubert de Burgh) was "nepos" to Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert
de Nerford. This record lends support to Blomfield's statement that
Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Joan Punchard, "one of the three
daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir William Punchard."
I doubt Blomfield's assertion, however, that Joan Pouchard's mother was
a daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
I believe he is wrong about that part of it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
Douglas Richardson wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that
an
< abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
< Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
< Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
< going to http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
<
< The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
< Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
< nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
< "fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the
foresaid
< Hubert de Burgh).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
<
< Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
I have tried to get the Monasticon on the wed, as Richardson so nicley
recommended, but something is wrong the the URL supplied.
At any rate he does not tell us who wrote the "foundation history of
Creake Abbey published by William Dugdale" or when it was written.
Setting aside the Victorian English used in the translation, the
internal evidence in the "foundation history" would indicate that is
was written as a "puff" piece for a grantor's family long after that
family was gone. Note the language about the French invasion. It
looks suspiciously similar to language by Matthew Paris. This
foundation history is of no value as evidence until its writer and date
can be established.
CED
Dear CED ~
I heartily recommend that you read the transcript of the original Latin
text of the foundation history of Creake Abbey published by William
Dugdale. This document can be found online at http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
To the Newsgroup:
I have tried to get the Monasticon on the wed, as Richardson so nicley
recommended, but something is wrong the the URL supplied.
At any rate he does not tell us who wrote the "foundation history of
Creake Abbey published by William Dugdale" or when it was written.
Setting aside the Victorian English used in the translation, the
internal evidence in the "foundation history" would indicate that is
was written as a "puff" piece for a grantor's family long after that
family was gone. Note the language about the French invasion. It
looks suspiciously similar to language by Matthew Paris. This
foundation history is of no value as evidence until its writer and date
can be established.
CED
I've already provided you the correct volume and page references for
you to consult. To make it real easy for you, I've copied the
references to Dugdale's volume and pages again below for you. If you
don't read Latin, I'll be glad to lend you a hand.
The document makes it clear that Bishop Geoffrey de Burgh (brother of
Earl Hubert de Burgh) was "nepos" to Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert
de Nerford. This record lends support to Blomfield's statement that
Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Joan Punchard, "one of the three
daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir William Punchard."
I doubt Blomfield's assertion, however, that Joan Pouchard's mother was
a daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
I believe he is wrong about that part of it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that
an
abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
going to http://www.monasticmatrix.com.
The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
"fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the
foresaid
Hubert de Burgh).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear CED ~
This URL should work for you:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
home page which is:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
from it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This URL should work for you:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
home page which is:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
from it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson is ignoring the fundamental question: who wrote the
foundation history and when was it written? Foundation histories, by
definition, are just that: histories, written sometime after the deeds
described. Foundation histories are not primary evidence. They are
secondary sources having value only as to who writes them, when they
were written, and for what purpose they were written. It up to
Richardson to show us the value of this foundation history.
By the way, since we do not know the name (or holding) of the father of
either Hubert de Burgh or of Bishop Geoffrey, it is possible that the
aunt (or some other relation) of Geoffrey was not the aunt (or some
other relation) of his more famous brother, Hubert.
Moreover, there is evidence that Alice was the name of Hubert's mother
(shown by Ellis, p. 191). Properly read, Ellis has shown that there
were two Alice's: one the mother of Bishop Geoffrey, the other an aunt,
great aunt, grandmother, or some other relation. Richardson has given
us nothing of value otherwise.
CED
The burden is on Richardson to prove his assertions. So far he has not
carries the burden of proof.
CED
Dear CED ~
This URL should work for you:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
home page which is:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
from it.
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson is ignoring the fundamental question: who wrote the
foundation history and when was it written? Foundation histories, by
definition, are just that: histories, written sometime after the deeds
described. Foundation histories are not primary evidence. They are
secondary sources having value only as to who writes them, when they
were written, and for what purpose they were written. It up to
Richardson to show us the value of this foundation history.
By the way, since we do not know the name (or holding) of the father of
either Hubert de Burgh or of Bishop Geoffrey, it is possible that the
aunt (or some other relation) of Geoffrey was not the aunt (or some
other relation) of his more famous brother, Hubert.
Moreover, there is evidence that Alice was the name of Hubert's mother
(shown by Ellis, p. 191). Properly read, Ellis has shown that there
were two Alice's: one the mother of Bishop Geoffrey, the other an aunt,
great aunt, grandmother, or some other relation. Richardson has given
us nothing of value otherwise.
CED
The burden is on Richardson to prove his assertions. So far he has not
carries the burden of proof.
CED
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
You're doding the question, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
You're dodging the question, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Whether I read Latin is not the question. Richardson is raising a new
issue to hide the original question - his old habit for dodgery.
However, if history is a guide on Richardson's secondary and irrelevant
question, my Latin is as good as his.
CED
You're dodging the question, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
To the Newsgroup:
Whether I read Latin is not the question. Richardson is raising a new
issue to hide the original question - his old habit for dodgery.
However, if history is a guide on Richardson's secondary and irrelevant
question, my Latin is as good as his.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
You're dodging the question yet again, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
Douglas Richardson wrote [four times]:
If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Chris Phillips
You're dodging the question yet again, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Chris Phillips
I agree. Let's see your evidence.
DR
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
I wrote:
Douglas Richardson replied:
I hope I can be excused from providing "my evidence", as I'm not making any
assertion - only trying to follow a rather obscure argument that's not made
any clearer by the personal stuff.
Regarding the Close Roll entry, could you explain what alternative
interpretations you envisage? That William was Hubert's _younger_ brother?
That the entry refers to a different Hubert de Burgh? That the word
translated as "uncle" denotes a different relationship? Or maybe some other
interpretation that I haven't thought of?
I'm also not clear why you seem to prefer the claim you remember reading
somewhere (perhaps in Blomefield) that the Alice buried at Walsingham was an
otherwise unknown wife of Hubert, rather than his mother. The extract from
the new DNB which you posted quotes a grant of Hubert 'for the soul of my
mother Alice', and refers to BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91. This is a
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary. It's difficult to imagine how
Blomefield or anyone else could have more accurate information, unless he
had access to the original grant.
Chris Phillips
If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not
have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Douglas Richardson replied:
I agree. Let's see your evidence.
I hope I can be excused from providing "my evidence", as I'm not making any
assertion - only trying to follow a rather obscure argument that's not made
any clearer by the personal stuff.
Regarding the Close Roll entry, could you explain what alternative
interpretations you envisage? That William was Hubert's _younger_ brother?
That the entry refers to a different Hubert de Burgh? That the word
translated as "uncle" denotes a different relationship? Or maybe some other
interpretation that I haven't thought of?
I'm also not clear why you seem to prefer the claim you remember reading
somewhere (perhaps in Blomefield) that the Alice buried at Walsingham was an
otherwise unknown wife of Hubert, rather than his mother. The extract from
the new DNB which you posted quotes a grant of Hubert 'for the soul of my
mother Alice', and refers to BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91. This is a
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary. It's difficult to imagine how
Blomefield or anyone else could have more accurate information, unless he
had access to the original grant.
Chris Phillips
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken
My understanding is that the question really is how contemporary this source
is, never mind the language.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
is, never mind the language.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
You're dodging the question, CED.
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net