Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 jan 2006 20:52:01

I just found an interesting book "Who's Who in British History, Early Medieval England 1066-1272" by Christopher Tyerman, published in 1996.

On page 312 starts quite a biography for Hubert de Burgh, it doesn't tell much about his family, except

Hubert belonged to a Norfolk gentry family. His elder brother served Prince John in Ireland in 1185.

As source for this biography is given :

D. Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III, 1990
D. Carpenter "The Fall of Hubert de Burgh", Journal of British Studies, xix, 1980.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jan 2006 22:23:27

I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville. Another kinsman, Reymund de Burgh, was married to a
dowager countess. Earl Hubert's kinswoman, Alice Pouchard, was
likewise married to a knight, Robert de Nerford. Alice's grandfather,
William Pouchard, and her son, Richard de Nerford, were also knights.
The fathers of Earl Hubert de Burgh's three wives were respectively a
knight (probable), an earl, and a king.

Given these facts, it appears almost certain that the Burgh family was
of knightly rank, not gentry.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av CED » 12 jan 2006 23:44:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:


If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

Richardson is not being quite honest in his statement about the holders
of office in Hubert de Burgh's family. Those two bishops were bishops
because of Hubert de Burgh's influence. Their offices no no way
relflect the status of Hubert's family before he rose to power. I
assume that Richardson did not know this or he would not have tried to
mislead the group.

CED



Another kinsman, Reymund de Burgh, was married to a
dowager countess. Earl Hubert's kinswoman, Alice Pouchard, was
likewise married to a knight, Robert de Nerford. Alice's grandfather,
William Pouchard, and her son, Richard de Nerford, were also knights.
The fathers of Earl Hubert de Burgh's three wives were respectively a
knight (probable), an earl, and a king.

Given these facts, it appears almost certain that the Burgh family was
of knightly rank, not gentry.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 13 jan 2006 00:49:41

In message of 12 Jan, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

I think you'll find that gentry is a rather late term and not in use in
early middle ages.

That said the division of the known universe was in more recent
centuries, into nobility and gentry and then everyone else. The
nobility were, of course, the peers who were summoned to parliament and
the gentry who were the rest of the country (not city) land-owners.

Being a knight did not alter a person's land tenure so it really did
not put him in a different classification. The main distinction was
probably that, like the soldiers on the Somme in WW1, they became, so
to speak, cannon fodder and died.

When did knights start? 1150 is about the earliest (Roger de Mowbray) I
can find.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av CED » 13 jan 2006 03:07:09

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 12 Jan, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

I think you'll find that gentry is a rather late term and not in use in
early middle ages.

That said the division of the known universe was in more recent
centuries, into nobility and gentry and then everyone else. The
nobility were, of course, the peers who were summoned to parliament and
the gentry who were the rest of the country (not city) land-owners.

Being a knight did not alter a person's land tenure so it really did
not put him in a different classification. The main distinction was
probably that, like the soldiers on the Somme in WW1, they became, so
to speak, cannon fodder and died.

When did knights start? 1150 is about the earliest (Roger de Mowbray) I
can find.

Tim:

So, accepting the fact the the term 'gentry' is of more nearly modern
parlance, describing non-noble land holders, nothing in the background
of either Hubert de Burgh that of Thomas de Burgh, whom Matthew Paris
tells us was Hubert's brother, would make them any different from what
we might call the 'gentry' of the 13th Century.

Richardson is trying to create a difference where none exists. Another
of his ploys to confuse (if indeed it is a ploy; sometimes I wonder
whether he knows any better).

By the way, another or the persons to whom the name Burgh has been
attached, Reymund de Burgh, drown in 1230, has no proven relationship
to Hubert de Burgh.

The sum total of it all is that the Burghs, individually and as a group
(whatever their relatonship to one another), were nobodys from no place
until Hubert came into prominence in the reign of King John. Whatever
their status after that time is most likely due to Hubert de Burgh's
influence.

CED
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2006 20:44:15

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

CED

Knightly.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2006 20:51:56

My impression is the ranks of lay medieval society were:

villeins (or serfs), tradesmen, merchants, gentlemen, esquires,
knights, barons, earls, and king, in that order.

An esquire was someone who held a manor, or part of a manor.

A knight held at least three to five manors.

A baron (someone summoned to Parliament) held at least 50 manors, give
or take.

An earl held at least 100 manors, give or take.

A king possessed a crown and a throne.

As I stated, I believe Earl Hubert de Burgh's family was of knightly
rank.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 12 Jan, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

I think you'll find that gentry is a rather late term and not in use in
early middle ages.

That said the division of the known universe was in more recent
centuries, into nobility and gentry and then everyone else. The
nobility were, of course, the peers who were summoned to parliament and
the gentry who were the rest of the country (not city) land-owners.

Being a knight did not alter a person's land tenure so it really did
not put him in a different classification. The main distinction was
probably that, like the soldiers on the Somme in WW1, they became, so
to speak, cannon fodder and died.

When did knights start? 1150 is about the earliest (Roger de Mowbray) I
can find.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av CED » 13 jan 2006 21:35:35

Douglas Richardson wrote:
My impression is the ranks of lay medieval society were:

villeins (or serfs), tradesmen, merchants, gentlemen, esquires,
knights, barons, earls, and king, in that order.

An esquire was someone who held a manor, or part of a manor.

A knight held at least three to five manors.

A baron (someone summoned to Parliament) held at least 50 manors, give
or take.

An earl held at least 100 manors, give or take.

A king possessed a crown and a throne.

As I stated, I believe Earl Hubert de Burgh's family was of knightly
rank.

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson should give a source for this nicely graded society and a
date for which such a society existed.

It must be after the Henry III, for no barons were ever summoned to
Parliament before Edward I (unless one counts those summoned by Simon
de Montfort).

What Richardson believes, without evidence, about Hubert de Burgh's
family is of no consequence. It should be noted that there is no
evidence of any family connection with Hubert before the reign of King
John; and that the reference to Hubert's being in the household of King
Richard I was indirect. (This latter reference is from a secondary
source, so of little value.)

What evidence does Richardson have that Hubert de Burgh was not the
first knight in his family (if indeed he has evidence that Hubert was a
knight and when Hubert did become a knight)? What evidence does
Richardson have that any member of Hubert de Burgh's family had any
office or was a knight before Hubert rose to power in the household of
King John.

CED



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 12 Jan, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

I think you'll find that gentry is a rather late term and not in use in
early middle ages.

That said the division of the known universe was in more recent
centuries, into nobility and gentry and then everyone else. The
nobility were, of course, the peers who were summoned to parliament and
the gentry who were the rest of the country (not city) land-owners.

Being a knight did not alter a person's land tenure so it really did
not put him in a different classification. The main distinction was
probably that, like the soldiers on the Somme in WW1, they became, so
to speak, cannon fodder and died.

When did knights start? 1150 is about the earliest (Roger de Mowbray) I
can find.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother

Legg inn av CED » 13 jan 2006 21:37:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's status.

CED

Knightly.

To the Newsgroup:

What evidence does Richardson have that a knightly class existed in
13th Century England?

CED

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»