Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jan 2006 06:55:34

Dear Newsgroup ~

The record below is taken from Annals of Worcester Priory. It refers
to Thomas de Blundeville (died 1226), Bishop of Norwich, which
individual is called "nepos" to Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl
of Kent:

Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1226 -

"T[homas] nepos Huberti de Burgo consecratur in episcopum Norwicensem
Dominica proxima ante Natale Domini [20 December].") [Reference:
Luard, ed., Annales Monastici, 4 (Rolls Series 36) (1869): 419].

The historian Diana Greenway provides the following details regarding
the life of Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, from which we learn that he
was king's clerk before being elevated to the bishopric of Norwich in
1226:

King's clerk (cf. Patent Rolls, 1225-32 p. 27). Lic. el. gr. 27 Oct.
1226 (ibid. p. 69). (fn. 8) El. Oct.(ann. Dover fo. 26r). Royal assent
5 Nov., temps. 21 Nov. (Pat. R. 1225-32 pp. 89, 92). Ordained priest
19 Dec. (ann. Dover fo. 26r), consecrated bishop 20 Dec. 1226 (ibid.;
Ann. Waverley, p. 302; cf. Acta S. Langton no. 96). (fn. 1) Professed
obedience, n.d. (Woodruff, Professions p. 173). He died 16 August 1236
(Chron. Bury p. 9; Chron. Maj. 111 378). (fn. 2) Commem. 16 Aug.
(Norwich obits. I p. 8, II fo. 6v, III p. 5v; Canterbury obits. II fo.
38r, III fo. 211r). [Reference: Diana E. Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300 2 (1971): 55-58].

Elsewhere, the noted historian, Nicholas Vincent, in his excellent
work, Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics, 1205-1238
(published in 1996), also mentions Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, who he
identifies as the nephew of Earl Hubert de Burgh. In footnote 4 on
page 261, Mr. Vincent provides the following information:

"For Thomas and his kinship to Hubert, see Annales Monastici, i
(Tewkesbury), pg. 69; Acta of the Legate Guala, 1216-1218, no. 49. He
witnesses at least one of Hubert's charters before election to Nowich;
Bodl. ms. Rawlinson B336 (St. Radegund's cartulary), pp. 170-1."

As best I can tell, Mr. Vincent appears to have missed the reference to
Bishop Thomas de Blundeville in the Annals of Worcester Priory which
I've quoted earlier above.

Given that the Latin word "nepos" can mean either nephew or near
kinsman in this time period, I ask if Thomas de Blundeville was nephew
or near kinsman to Earl Hubert de Burgh?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jan 2006 07:00:57

Dear Newsgroup ~

The record below is taken from the Annals of Worcester Priory. It
refers to Thomas de Blundeville (died 1236), Bishop of Norwich, which
individual is called "nepos" to Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl
of Kent:

Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1226 -

"T[homas] nepos Huberti de Burgo consecratur in episcopum Norwicensem
Dominica proxima ante Natale Domini [20 December].") [Reference: Luard,
ed., Annales Monastici, 4 (Rolls Series 36) (1869): 419].

The historian, Diana Greenway, provides the following details regarding
the life of Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, from which we learn that he
was king's clerk before being elevated to the bishopric of Norwich in
1226:

King's clerk (cf. Patent Rolls, 1225-32 p. 27). Lic. el. gr. 27 Oct.
1226 (ibid. p. 69). (fn. 8) El. Oct.(ann. Dover fo. 26r). Royal assent
5 Nov., temps. 21 Nov. (Pat. R. 1225-32 pp. 89, 92). Ordained priest
19 Dec. (ann. Dover fo. 26r), consecrated bishop 20 Dec. 1226 (ibid.;
Ann. Waverley, p. 302; cf. Acta S. Langton no. 96). (fn. 1) Professed
obedience, n.d. (Woodruff, Professions p. 173). He died 16 August 1236
(Chron. Bury p. 9; Chron. Maj. 111 378). (fn. 2) Commem. 16 Aug.
(Norwich obits. I p. 8, II fo. 6v, III p. 5v; Canterbury obits. II fo.
38r, III fo. 211r). [Reference: Diana E. Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300 2 (1971): 55-58].

Elsewhere, the historian, Nicholas Vincent, in his excellent work,
Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics, 1205-1238 (published in
1996), also mentions Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, who he identifies as
the nephew of Earl Hubert de Burgh. In footnote 4 on page 261, Mr.
Vincent provides the following information:

"For Thomas and his kinship to Hubert, see Annales Monastici, i
(Tewkesbury), pg. 69; Acta of the Legate Guala, 1216-1218, no. 49. He
witnesses at least one of Hubert's charters before election to Nowich;
Bodl. ms. Rawlinson B336 (St. Radegund's cartulary), pp. 170-1."

As best I can tell, Mr. Vincent appears to have missed the reference to
Bishop Thomas de Blundeville in the Annals of Worcester Priory which
I've quoted earlier above.

Given that the Latin word "nepos" can mean either nephew or near
kinsman in this time period, I ask if Thomas de Blundeville was nephew
or near kinsman to Earl Hubert de Burgh?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av CED » 12 jan 2006 13:19:36

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

The record below is taken from the Annals of Worcester Priory. It
refers to Thomas de Blundeville (died 1236), Bishop of Norwich, which
individual is called "nepos" to Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl
of Kent:

Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1226 -

"T[homas] nepos Huberti de Burgo consecratur in episcopum Norwicensem
Dominica proxima ante Natale Domini [20 December].") [Reference: Luard,
ed., Annales Monastici, 4 (Rolls Series 36) (1869): 419].

To the Newsgroup:

Ellis in _Hubert de Burgh_ (page 135) mentions Thomas de Blundville,
bishop of Norwich, as being a nephew of Hubert de Burgh.

I would have thought that Richardson, having read Ellis, would have
included that reference.

CED

The historian, Diana Greenway, provides the following details regarding
the life of Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, from which we learn that he
was king's clerk before being elevated to the bishopric of Norwich in
1226:

King's clerk (cf. Patent Rolls, 1225-32 p. 27). Lic. el. gr. 27 Oct.
1226 (ibid. p. 69). (fn. 8) El. Oct.(ann. Dover fo. 26r). Royal assent
5 Nov., temps. 21 Nov. (Pat. R. 1225-32 pp. 89, 92). Ordained priest
19 Dec. (ann. Dover fo. 26r), consecrated bishop 20 Dec. 1226 (ibid.;
Ann. Waverley, p. 302; cf. Acta S. Langton no. 96). (fn. 1) Professed
obedience, n.d. (Woodruff, Professions p. 173). He died 16 August 1236
(Chron. Bury p. 9; Chron. Maj. 111 378). (fn. 2) Commem. 16 Aug.
(Norwich obits. I p. 8, II fo. 6v, III p. 5v; Canterbury obits. II fo.
38r, III fo. 211r). [Reference: Diana E. Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae 1066-1300 2 (1971): 55-58].

Elsewhere, the historian, Nicholas Vincent, in his excellent work,
Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics, 1205-1238 (published in
1996), also mentions Bishop Thomas de Blundeville, who he identifies as
the nephew of Earl Hubert de Burgh. In footnote 4 on page 261, Mr.
Vincent provides the following information:

"For Thomas and his kinship to Hubert, see Annales Monastici, i
(Tewkesbury), pg. 69; Acta of the Legate Guala, 1216-1218, no. 49. He
witnesses at least one of Hubert's charters before election to Nowich;
Bodl. ms. Rawlinson B336 (St. Radegund's cartulary), pp. 170-1."

As best I can tell, Mr. Vincent appears to have missed the reference to
Bishop Thomas de Blundeville in the Annals of Worcester Priory which
I've quoted earlier above.

Given that the Latin word "nepos" can mean either nephew or near
kinsman in this time period, I ask if Thomas de Blundeville was nephew
or near kinsman to Earl Hubert de Burgh?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jan 2006 17:32:45

If the evidence for kinship between Bishop Thomas de Blundeville and
Earl Hubert de Burgh is merely that Thomas de Blundeville was called
"nepos" of Hubert de Burgh, that is insufficient proof that they were
nephew and uncle. I posted an example yesterday taken from the same
Worcester Annals in which Robert de Mortimer was called "nepos" to
Edmund de Mortimer. Robert de Mortimer wasn't the nephew of Edmund de
Mortimer at all. He was actually a near male cousin. The Mortimer
case is yet another reason why we should be extremely careful
translating the word nepos in this time period.

DR

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av CED » 12 jan 2006 22:05:28

Douglas Richardson wrote:


If the evidence for kinship between Bishop Thomas de Blundeville and
Earl Hubert de Burgh is merely that Thomas de Blundeville was called
"nepos" of Hubert de Burgh, that is insufficient proof that they were
nephew and uncle. I posted an example yesterday taken from the same
Worcester Annals in which Robert de Mortimer was called "nepos" to
Edmund de Mortimer.

To the Newsgroup:

As usual Richardson either missed the point of my reply to his post
(his post gave instances of Hubert de Burgh's having a 'nephew'
(nepos), Thomas Bludeville, bishop of Norwich; my reponse was to point
out another another instance from a book he has claimed to have read).


Now he wants to dispute the meaning of 'nepos,' which, along with
'cognatus,' appears to be one of his favorite hobby-like pastimes (he
is no professional in laguages; therefore it is, to say the least,
'hobby-like' ).

I am no more competent in medieval Latin usage than he is; and
therefore, not one to be consulted for expertise; though he should
consult someone having such expertise before demonstraing his ignorance
on such a matter.

Apparently he wants another flame contest. he shan't have it with me.

CED

Robert de Mortimer wasn't the nephew of Edmund de
Mortimer at all. He was actually a near male cousin. The Mortimer
case is yet another reason why we should be extremely careful
translating the word nepos in this time period.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jan 2006 22:36:04

Calling someone a "nepos" in the 1200's does not mean that they were
another person's nephew. Rather, the word "nepos" in that time period
can refer to one's near kinsman, nephew, or grandson. I assume we're
all agreed on this.

So I ask once again: Given that Thomas de Blundeville has been called
the "nepos" of Earl Hubert de Burgh in at least one contemporary
record, what evidence is there that Thomas de Blundeville was Earl
Hubert de Burgh's nephew, rather than a close kinsman?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jan 2006 23:17:26

Douglas Richardson wrote:
So I ask once again: [snip]

As I've mentioned (several times), it would be helpful if you could indicate
whether, in the view of the information that emerged from the previous
discussion, you still claim to have "refuted" Ellis's conclusion that Hubert
was a younger brother of William. Or if not, whether or not you accept that
Hubert and William were brothers. (And if you don't accept that, what
alternative interpretation you have in mind for the document in which,
apparently, William's son calls Hubert his uncle.)

Chris Phillips

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av CED » 12 jan 2006 23:35:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Calling someone a "nepos" in the 1200's does not mean that they were
another person's nephew. Rather, the word "nepos" in that time period
can refer to one's near kinsman, nephew, or grandson. I assume we're
all agreed on this.

To the Newsgroup:

Just one for time: I only pointed out an omission in Richardson's
post. I pointed out that Ellis, on page 135 of his book, noted that
Thomas Bludville was a nephew of Hubert de Burgh. This was in addition
to two instances he had grought to the attention of the group. I
expressed no opinion as to the acurracy of that or any other statement
by other authors regarding the relationship between the two men.

I ask you all in the Newsgroup, what kind of fight is Richardson
wanting? If any of the group wished to get into a p-contest whith a
skunk, right on!

CED
So I ask once again: Given that Thomas de Blundeville has been called
the "nepos" of Earl Hubert de Burgh in at least one contemporary
record, what evidence is there that Thomas de Blundeville was Earl
Hubert de Burgh's nephew, rather than a close kinsman?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2006 20:57:44

I haven't had a chance to look at the evidence which alleges that Earl
Hubert de Burgh was the uncle of William de Burgh's son. As soon as I
do have the opportunity, I'll make a comment here on the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
So I ask once again: [snip]

As I've mentioned (several times), it would be helpful if you could indicate
whether, in the view of the information that emerged from the previous
discussion, you still claim to have "refuted" Ellis's conclusion that Hubert
was a younger brother of William. Or if not, whether or not you accept that
Hubert and William were brothers. (And if you don't accept that, what
alternative interpretation you have in mind for the document in which,
apparently, William's son calls Hubert his uncle.)

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 13 jan 2006 22:42:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I haven't had a chance to look at the evidence which alleges that Earl
Hubert de Burgh was the uncle of William de Burgh's son. As soon as I
do have the opportunity, I'll make a comment here on the newsgroup.


Thank you for responding.

As you haven't looked at the evidence, I presume your claim to have
"refuted" Ellis related only to his opinion that William was older than
Hubert, not to his conclusion they were brothers. That they were brothers is
accepted by the author of the CP account of Ulster, on the basis of Ellis's
evidence.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's nepos, Thomas de Blundeville (Revised

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2006 23:20:31

I need to review the evidence before I can make any comment on the
matter.

I do have four immediate concerns, though. First, my impression is
that William de Burgh was much older than Sir Hubert de Burgh. William
de Burgh seems to surface around 1185, whereas Sir Hubert de Burgh and
his two brothers, Sir Thomas and Geoffrey, surface in the records in
1198, 1199, and 1200 respectively. Hubert de Burgh was not married
until c. Michaelmas 1211. Thomas de Burgh had the grant of the
wardship and evidently the marriage of his future wife, Nesta de
Cokefield, in 1201. Thomas and Nesta first occur as man and wife in
1208. So there appears to be a bit of difference in ages between
William de Burgh and his alleged three brothers, Hubert, Thomas, and
Geoffrey.

Second, I'm unable to find any land which William de Burgh might have
had in England, with the possible exception of Oulton, Norfolk, which
occurs in association in one record with Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of
Clare, who was the widow of his male line descendant, John de Burgh.
Sir Hubert de Burgh possessed the advowson of Oulton, Norfolk, which he
gave to a religious house. If William de Burgh was the eldest brother
of this family, he and his heirs should have inherited any lands in
England which the Burgh family held prior to 1200. I find no evidence
to corroborate the descent of any English lands to the Irish Burgh
family. This is most unusual to say the least if William de Burgh of
Ireland was truly the elder brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh.

This may mean that there was yet another brother who was senior to
William de Burgh. If so, that unknown brother could well be the father
of Sir Hubert de Burgh's "nepos," Raymund de Burgh. But this scenario
encounters problems as well. Raymond de Burgh is known to have held
Dartford, Kent, but he obtained it by grant of the king. So, again, no
traceable property.

Third, there is a charter in which Sir Hubert de Burgh referred to
William de Boseville as his ancestor [see S.H.F. Johnston, "The Lands
of Hubert de Burgh," in English Historical Review, 50 (1935):
418-432]. To my knowledge, no one has yet isolated the connection
between Sir Hubert de Burgh and the Boseville family. My guess is that
William de Boseville was the ancestor of Sir Hubert de Burgh's first
wife, Beatrice de Warenne. But, if that were the case, it is odd that
Hubert did not claim his descent from William de Boseville in right of
his wife.

Fourth, and much less problematical, Sir Hubert de Burgh's arms do not
match the arms of the Burgh family of Ireland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I haven't had a chance to look at the evidence which alleges that Earl
Hubert de Burgh was the uncle of William de Burgh's son. As soon as I
do have the opportunity, I'll make a comment here on the newsgroup.


Thank you for responding.

As you haven't looked at the evidence, I presume your claim to have
"refuted" Ellis related only to his opinion that William was older than
Hubert, not to his conclusion they were brothers. That they were brothers is
accepted by the author of the CP account of Ulster, on the basis of Ellis's
evidence.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»