Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part I

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part I

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2006 19:36:00

Dear Newsgroup ~

The evidence that Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243) , Earl of Kent, was
brother to Sir Thomas de Burgh, of Upper Arley, Staffordshire, and
Cokefield, Suffolk, is quite good. Below are abstracts of various
records taken from various sources which document Sir Thomas de Burgh's
relationship to Earl Hubert, or to Earl Hubert's other known brother,
Geoffrey de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich, Bishop of Ely.

Sir Thomas de Burgh first surfaces in 1199. He married in or about
1201 to Nesta de Cokefield, daughter and sole heiress of Adam de
Cokefield, of Cokefield, Groton, and Semer, Suffolk, by his wife,
Rohese. They had no issue. He was living in 1221, with he occurs in
association with his kinsman, Thomas de Blundeville, afterwards Bishop
of Norwich. Sir Thomas de Burgh's widow, Nesta, married (2nd) in or
before 1233 John de Beauchamp (died 1241), and (3rd) Matthew de Leyham.
She died about 1248. For an extended pedigree of the Cokefield
family, see W.A. Copinger, Manors of Suffolk, 1 (1905): 11.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Records which support the Identification of Sir Thomas de Burgh as
brother of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, and of Geoffrey de Burgh,
Archdeacon of Norwich, Bishop of Ely:

(1) Birmingham City Archives: Lyttleton of Hagley Hall, Reference: MS
3279/351062 - grant dated 1227/43 from Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent to
Robert son of Robert de Gloverina of land which the latter held from
Thomas de Burgh, brother of the said Hubert in Erleigh [Upper Arley],
Staffordshire (abstract of document available online at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

(2) C. Harper-Bill, English Episcopal Acta VI: Norwich, 1070-1214
(1990): 291 (charter dated 1204 witnessed by Geoffrey [de Burgh],
Archdeacon of Norwich, and Thomas his brother).

(3) Source: Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds

"On Adam de Cokefield's death [?1198], the abbot could have taken 300
marks for the wardship of Adam's only daughter, but because her
grandfather had secretly taken her away, the abbot was not able to get
hold of the girl without the help of Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury,
so he granted her wardship to the archbishop for the sum of £100. The
archbishop sold her wardship for 500 marks to Thomas de Burgh, brother
of [Hubert de Burgh] the king's chamberlain, and the girl, with all her
rights, was given to him with the abbot's consent. Thomas therefore at
once sought possession of the three manors - Cockfield, Semer, and
Groton - which were in our hands after Adam's death. But we were of
the opinion that we could them all in our demesne, or at least two of
them - Semer and Groton: firstly because Robert de Cokefield, nearing
the end, had said in front of witnessess that he could not claim those
two manors by hereditary right, and secondly because his son Adam, in
open court, had resigned those two manors to us and had made a charter
to that effect, in which it was stated that he held those two manors as
a favour from the convent for his lifetime only. Thomas, therefore
seeking to get a writ of recognition on this, had knights summoned to
go to Tewkesbury to appear on oath before the king [April 1201]. Our
charter cut no ice when it was read in public because the whole court
was against us. The knights said on oath that they knew nothing of our
charters or of any private agreements, but believed Adam and his father
and his grandfather had held the manors for the past one hundred in fee
farm, one following the other without any break in the succession.
And, after so much trouble, we were dispossessed in a court judgement,
and retained only the ancient rents." [Reference: Diana Greenway &
Jane Sayers, eds., Jocelin of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury
St. Edmunds (1989), pg. 109].

TO BE CONTINUED

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part I

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 13 jan 2006 20:22:24

Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
Below are abstracts of various
records taken from various sources which document Sir Thomas de Burgh's
relationship to Earl Hubert, or to Earl Hubert's other known brother,
Geoffrey de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich, Bishop of Ely.


I've asked a number of times whether you still claim to have "refuted"
Ellis's argument that William de Burgh was also a brother of Hubert. These
questions you have ignored.

If for some reason you aren't willing to answer, please could you say so? At
least it would save the rest of us some time and temper.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2006 05:47:42

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is the second part of a three part messuage on Sir Thomas de
Burgh, of Upper Arley, Staffordshire, and Cockfield, Suffolk, brother
of Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl of Kent. In the previous
message, I presented evidence which indicated that Sir Thomas de Burgh
was a brother to Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, and Geoffrey de
Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich, Bishop of Ely, and also that Sir Thomas
de Burgh acquired the wardship of Nesta de Cockfield, daughter and
heiress of Adam de Cockfield, of Cockfield, Groton, and Semere,
Suffolk. In this post, I will provide additional evidence which shows
that Sir Thomas de Burgh married Nesta de Cockfield, that Sir Thomas de
Burgh was a knight, and that he died prior to 1233.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(1) Source: W.A. Copinger, Manors of Suffolk, 1 (1905): 109-110:

Sub Groton Mannor: "The Abbot of Bury leased this manor to Robert de
Cokefeld son of Adam son of Lemmerus for life, and on his death Abbot
Sampson 3rd Rich. of I. granted a fresh lease to Robert's son Adam de
Cokefield for life. Adam married Rohais and had issue an only child
Nesta who married 1st Thomas de Burgh. Adam de Cokefield having died
about 1209 Rohais his widow released to the said Thomas de Burgh and
Nesta his wife her dower in the lands of her late husband in this
parish, Cockfield and Semere other lands being assigned to her in lieu
thereof. After the death of Thomas de Burgh this Nesta married John de
Beauchamp and finally, Matthew de Leyham. In the 26th Henry III. this
Matthew de Leyham and Nesta his wife granted to the Abbot of St.
Edmunds five carucates of land in Cockfield the Abbot releasing to them
all claim to the lands belonging to his monastery in the parish,
Lindsey, Rougham and Semere. Nesta de Leyham died without issue by any
of her husbands, about the year 1248, when the King commanded Edmund,
Abbot of St. Edmunds to restore to Bartholomew de Creke, Ralph de
Berners and William de Bellomonte the Manors of Groton and Semere to
which the Abbot had no title except through Henry, late Abbot of St.
Edmunds who had intruded whilst Nesta [to whom the said Bartholomew,
Ralph and William were cousins and heirs] was in extremis, by reason of
a lease granted by Matthew de Leyham her husband, against her will, to
John de Cramaville." END OF QUOTE.

[Note: The above account by Copinger contains one obvious error. He
states that Adam de Cockfield, father of Nesta de Cockfield, died about
1209. However, in my first post, I cited evidence which indicates that
Adam de Cockfield died before April 1201, when Thomas de Burgh had
Adam's lands granted to him in right of the wardship of Adam's minor
daughter and heiress. Thomas de Burgh subsequently married Nesta de
Cockfield. As indicated above, Copinger shows that Nesta de
Cockfield's heirs in 1248 included a certain William de Beaumont. This
William de Beaumont married as his 2nd wife, Alice d'Oyry, widow of
John Belet, and daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry, by whom he was
the father of Joan Beaumont, wife of Reyner de Burgh. So, Reyner and
Joan de Burgh who were erroneously named by Blomfield as Sir Hubert de
Burgh's parents actually appear in Sir Hubert de Burgh's family tree,
albeit as near kinsfolk of his brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh's wife,
Nesta de Cockfield].

(2) Curia Regis Rolls.

Date: 1200. "Staff'. - Willelmus filius Oliveri, versus quem Thomas de
Burgo recuperavit seisinam in curia sua de quadam terra in Erleg',
venit et posuit se super visvetum et super pares suos ut recognoscatur
in curia Thome si frater ipsius Willelmi fuit seisitus die qua obiit de
predicta terra et si debet tenere de predicto Thoma terrram illam pro
v. solidis per annum: et Thomas hoc concessit." [Reference: Curia Regis
Rolls, 1 (1922): 258].

(3) Pipe Roll, Michaelmas 1200, sub Staffordshire:

"Et in quietantia v hidaram Tome de Burgo x s. hoc anno." [Reference:
Doris M. Stenton, ed., The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Second Year
of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1200 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 12)
(1934): 249].

(4) Pipe Roll, Michaelmas 1207, sub Staffordshire:

"Idem Vic. r.c. de xxj li. de firma de Erleia que fuit Tome de Burgo de
anno et dim. In thes. lib. Et Q.E." [Reference: A. Mary Kirkus, ed.,
The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Ninth Year of the Reign of King
John, Michaelmas 1207 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 22) (1946): 9].

(5) Curia Regis Roll 77.

Date 1220. "Suff. - Assina venit recognitura quis advocatus tempore
pacis presentavit ultimam personam, que mortua est, ad ecclesiam de
Hegeset', que vacat etc., cujus advocationem abbas de Sancto Edmundo
clamat versus Roheisiam de Cokefeld': que venit et dicit quod tenet
terram illam ubi ecclesia sita est in dotem ex dono Ade de Cokef'
quondam viri [sui]; et vocat inde ad warantum Thomam de Burgo et Nestam
uxorem ejus, filiam et heredem predicti Ade. Habeat eos in crastino
sancti Martini. Idem dies datus est omnibus recognitoribus qui
venerunt." [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 9 (1952): 214]

(6) Curia Regis Roll 79.

Date: 1221. "Suff'. - Assisa venit recognitura quis advocatus tempore
pacis presentavit ultimam personam, que mortua est, ad ecclesiam de
Hegshet', que vacat etc., cujus advocationiem abbas de Sancto Edmundo
clamat versus Roheisiam de Cokesfeld': que [venit et] vocavit inde ad
warantum Thomam de Burgo et Nestam uxorem ejus; qui venerunt per
attornatos suos et dicunt quod ei warentizant et dicunt quod ecclesia
non vacat, quia quidam Thomas de Stanlac' est inde persona. Et abbas
per attornatum suum dicit quod idem Thomas est inde vicarius et
reddidit Gaufrido de Stanlac' duos solidos nomine pensionis ad
presentationem abbatis Samsonis; et de morte ejusdem Gaufridi aramiavit
ipse assisam istam.

Concordati sunt pro dimidia marca, quam abbas dat [domino regi] pro
licentia etc. Et est concordia talis, quod Thomas et Nesta
concesserunt eidem abbati [per attornatum suum] presentationem suam,
salvo eis jure suo in posterum. Et ideo abbas habeat breve ad electum
quod propter reclamationem ipsorum non omittat etc. quin etc."
[Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 10 (1949): 160-161].

(7) Curia Regis Roll 79.

Date: 1221. "Norf'. - Willelmus de Langham petit versus Willelmum
filium Clementis quod warentizet ei quater xx. acras terre cum
pertinentiis in Habton' et in Fundenhal', quas tenet et de eo tenere
clamat et unde cartam suam habet, ut dicit, quam profert et que
testatur quod ipse dedit ei. etc. pro homagio et servitio suo et pro
quarterviginti libris argenti, quas ei dedit ad aquietandum eum de
debitis Judeorum, totam terram de Fundehal' et de Habeton' quam tenuit
de Roberto de Crec habendam etc., et ipse et heredes sui warentizabunt
ipsi Willelmo et heredibus suis predictam terram inperpetuum, hiis
testibus Thoma de Burgo milite Thoma de Blunville' Rogero de Reimes
Fulcone Bainnard' et Fulcone filio ejus Huberto de Braunford' et
Ricardo filio ejus et Ricardo de Frisingefeld' Willelmo de Wadingefeld'
Roberto Esturmy Rogero Pullies Thoma filio Clementis et Rogero de
Chilton'.
Et Willelmus filius Clementis venit et dicit quod non debet terram
illam ei warentizare, quia ipse nunquam cartam illam ei fecit nec
sigillum suum fuit nec per cartam illam unquam seisinam habuit nec
donum illud ei fecit; et inde ponit se super testes nominatos in carta:
et Willelmus de Langham similiter. Et ideo fiat inde jurata per testes
etc. et per sex legales homines de visneto, per quos rei veritas etc.,
et tales qui nec ipsum Willelmum vel affinitate etc.; et veniat a die
sancti Michaelis in unum mensem ad recognoscendum si donum illud ei
fecit et si cartam illam ei fecit et si per cartam illam eum in
seisinam posuit necne etc.
Et Robertus de Nereford' apponit clamium suum; et dicit quod ipse
tenet terram illam et tenuit post festum sancti Michaelis.
Idem die datus est Roberto de Nereford' petenti et eidem Willelmo de
Langham de placito warantie carte de eadem terra. Et sciendum quod
Willelmus filius Clementis venit et warentizavit eidem Roberto cartam
illam et terram predictam: et ideo habent eundem diem [etc.]."
[Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 10 (1949): 56-57].

[Note: The above lawsuit mentions Sir Thomas de Burgh, and his kinsman
Thomas de Blunville [afterwards Bishop of Norwich], who are identified
as witnesses of a charter discussed in the lawsuit. Sir Robert de
Nerford, husband of Thomas de Burgh's kinswoman, Alice Pouchard, makes
his claim to land named in the lawsuit, namely in Fundenhall and
Hapton, Norfolk. That Sir Thomas de Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de
Burgh, is the person who is named in the above lawsuit is further
indicated by the mention of two men, Richard de Fresingfield and
William de Waldingfield, who elsewhere appear as witnesses to two
charters for Sir Thomas de Burgh to Kersey Priory, which charters are
found immediately below. For a fine dated 1244/1245 involving Sir
Robert de Nerford's son, Richard de Nerford, and John de Blumville
regarding lands in Fundenhall and Hapton, Norfolk, see Walter Rye, A
Short Calendar of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk, pg. 76.].

(8) Undated confirmation charter from Thomas de Burgo to Kersey Priory,
Suffolk. The charter dates prior to 1225, when Geoffrey de Burgh, the
grantor's brother, who served as a witness, became Bishop of Ely.

"Thomas de Burgo omnibus hominibus, et amicis, et vicinis suis, Francis
et Anglis, præsentibus et futuris, salutem. Sciatis me concessisse,
et hac præsenti carta me confirmasse Deo, et sanctæ genitrici Dei
Mariæ, et sancto Antonio de Kerseia, donationem, et concessionem et
confirmationem, quam Willelmus filius Richardi, frater Henrici
capellani de Leleseia, fecit Deo, et beatæ Mariæ genitrici Dei, at
sancto Antonia de Kerseye, et eis ibidem ministrantibus, de toto
patrimonio suo, quod habuit in villa de Leleseia, cum pertinentiis
suis, sicut carta prædicti Willielmi filii Richardi, eis facta,
testatur. Hiis testibus, Richardo de Fresingfeld, Willielmo de
Waldingefeld, Waltero de Groten, Galfrido de Burgo, Rogero Frevill,
Willielmo Arunde, Symone de Semere, Radulfo de Priditun, Amiano de More
clerico, et multis aliis." [Reference: William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 593].

(9) Undated charter from Thomas de Burgh and his wife, Nest, to Kersey
Priory, Suffolk. The charter date in the period between 1200 and 1225,
when Geoffrey de Burgh, the grantor's brother, was Archdeacon of
Norwich.

"Sciant præsentes et futuri, quod ego Thomas de Burgo, et Nesta uxor
mea, pro salute animarum nostrarum, et omnium parentum nostrorum,
concessimus et dedimus, et hac præsenti carta nostra confirmavimus Deo
et ecclesiæ beatæ Mariæ, et sancti Antonii de Kerseia, et fratribus
ibidem Deo servientibus, tres acres terræ arabilis in villa de
Grotene, &c. Testibus, Richardo de Fresingfeld, Willielmo de
Waldingefeld, Galfrido de Burgo archidiacono Norwici, &c." [Reference:
William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 593].

(10) Undated charter between Thomas son of Walter de Burgo and Thomas
de Iford regarding land in Upwell, Norfolk, held of Sir William
Bardolf. Sir William Bardolf was the step-son of Sir Hubert de Burgh
and came of age in 17 John (1215/16) [Reference: Dugdale, Baronage,
681]. Upwell, Norfolk is located about 5 miles due west of Stow
Bardolph, Norfolk, which was presumably the chief residence of Sir
William Bardolf until 1243, when he obtained his mother's barony of
Wormegay, Norfolk. Stow Bardolph is located about 5 miles southwest of
Wormegay, which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh until his death in
1243. The charter below appears to date sometime after 1215/1216, when
William Bardolf came of age, and 1225, when Geoffrey de Burgh (brother
of the grantor), one of the witnesses, became Bishop of Ely.

"Thomas son of Walter de Burgo .... confirms to Thomas de Iford for his
service and for ten marks sterling as fine a piece of land called
Cnappecroft, that is, sixteen acres more or less in Vtwell lying (sic).
To hold, etc. T. de I. is to pay by way of rent one clove of
gillyflower at Michaelmas, rendering in addition the services when
pertain to the land of the lord of the fee, Sir William Bardolf ...
[and] one pound of cumin at the said term ... [Warranty and sealing
clauses.]. Witnessess: - Sir Adam de Hagebech, Robert de Covenham,
Walter Frost, Bennet de Rolyston, William Palmer, William Dalycun,
Geoffrey de Burgo, Gilbert the merchant of Walsoken, Roger Palmer of
Walton ..." [Reference: J.H. Bullock, The Norfolk Portion of the
Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 12)
(1939): 71].

(11) Undated charter issued by Anger, Abbot of West Dereham, Norfolk
to Thomas de la Sale. Dugdale indicates that Angerius was abbot of
West Dereham in 16 Henry III (A.D. 1231-2) [Reference: Dugdale,
Monasticon 6 Pt. 2 (1830): 899]. Thus, it would appear this charter
would date around this period.

"Anger by divine permission the abbot of Derham with the approval of
the chapter quitclaims to Thomas de la Sale ... sixteen acres of land
in Vtwelle called Le knoppecroft, the ones they hold of the gift of
Thomas de Burgo and of which T. de B. at their wish enfeoffed Thomas de
la Sale. [Sealing clause.] Witnesses: Sir Thomas de Burgo, Master
Adam Frost, Walter Frost, John de Boys, Ralph Rut, Walter Spinroc."
[Reference: J.H. Bullock, The Norfolk Portion of the Chartulary of the
Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 12) (1939): 61].

(12) Curia Regis Roll 113.

Date: Michaelmas term, 1233. "Essex'. Walterus de Wancy dat j. marcam
pro licentia concordandi cum Johanne de Bello Campo et Nesta uxore ejus
de placito warantie carte: et habent cirographum. Plegius Walteri
predictus Johannes etc." [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 15 (1972):
124].

[Note: The above lawsuit indicates that Nesta de Cockfield, widow of
Sir Thomas de Burgh, married (2nd) in or before 10 October 1233 John de
Beauchamp, which date is when Michaelmas law term commenced in 1233.
For the dating of law terms, see C.R. Cheney & Michael Jones, A
Handbook of Dates (2000): 137].


:

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2006 07:33:35

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post earlier this evening, I presented evidence which indicates
that Sir Thomas de Burgh (died before 1233), brother of Sir Hubert de
Burgh, held property at Upwell, Norfolk under Sir William Bardolf, the
step-son of Sir Hubert de Burgh.

The following information has been found in the online edition of VCH
Cambridge, volume 4
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... reham#n100).
This material relates to the history of the Burgh family's land
holding at Upwell:

"The priory of Walsingham (Norf.) also received grants from the de
Burghs and other local families; (fn. 1) Its lands were valued at £1
10s. in 1291 but at only 16s. in 1535. (fn. 2). ... Besides Ramsey
other monasteries not locally situated in the district held property in
Upwell and Outwell. Of these the abbey of West Dereham (Norf.) was the
most extensively endowed. During the 13th century several local persons
made grants to it. The most important of these benefactors was William
le Curteis, who gave 23 acres, 7s. 4d. in rents and the homage of five
tenants in 'Welle', (fn. 94) and Thomas de Burch, who gave a messuage
and 50 acres in Upwell (fn. 95)."

Footnote 1: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5. The total area is
put at 380 acres, but the 20 grants or so copied into the cartulary do
not amount to anything like so much.

Footnote 2: Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iii, 385-6.

Footnote 95: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b." END OF QUOTE.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
It appears that the village of Upwell lies partly in Norfolk and partly
in Cambridgeshire, which explains why its history is found in VCH
Cambridge. Because the grants of the Burgh family to Walsingham Priory
are contained in an unpublished manuscript at the British Library, it
is impossible to say who in the Burgh family made the grants in
question to Walsingham Priory. However, Complete Peerage elsewhere
states that Earl Hubert de Burgh gave the advowson of Oulton, Norfolk
to Walsingham Priory for the soul of Alice his mother who was buried in
Walsingham church [Reference: Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133, footnote
a].

Thus, it would appear virtually certain that either Sir Hubert de Burgh
and/or his brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh, were the individuals who
granted lands at Upwell, Norfolk to Walsingham Priory. And, Sir Thomas
de Burgh (brother of Sir Hubert) is presumably the same person as the
"Thomas de Burch" who gave property at Upwell to West Dereham Priory.

VCH Cambridge, volume 4, includes information regarding the
overlordship at Upwell by the Bardolf and Warenne families which they
held as part of their honour of Wormegay, Norfolk. The VCH account
makes no mention, however, that Sir Hubert de Burgh would have
possessed the Upwell fee from at least 1211 to 1243, as part of the
Wormegay honour, in right of his wife, Beatrice de Warenne's
inheritance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2006 22:13:38

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is the third part of a three part messuage on Sir Thomas de Burgh,
of Upper Arley, Staffordshire, and Cockfield, Suffolk, brother of Sir
Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl of Kent. In the previous two
messages, I've presented the evidence which proves that Sir Thomas de
Burgh was a brother to Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, and Geoffrey
de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich, Bishop of Ely. I've also posted
evidence which shows that Sir Thomas de Burgh married Nesta de
Cockfield, that Sir Thomas de Burgh was a knight, and that he died
prior to 1233.

In this messuage, further information regarding the life of Sir Thomas
de Burgh is given, specifically mention of his capture as a prisoner at
Norwich Castle by Prince Louis of France in 1216. Also, various
charters will be presented which prove that Thomas de Burgh's widow,
Nesta de Cokefield, married (2nd) John de Beauchamp (living 1240), and
(3rd) Matthew de Leyham.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(1) In 1201 Thomas de Burgh "was released from a debt of £133 which
an English Jew was demanding from him under a charter of Robert de
Cokefeld and Adam his son, whose heir Thomas had in custody.
[Reference: Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 30 (1931): 315, citing R.
de Libertate, 3 John, 24].

[Note: Thomas de Burgh subsequently married his ward, Nesta de
Cockfield, who was the daughter and heiress of Adam de Cockfield].

(2) Source: Chronicle of Roger of Wendover. Date: 1216.

"C. and B. insert here: - One day, however, Louis thinking to corrupt
the fidelity and firmness of Hubert de Burgh, by trying his avarice,
sent word that he wished to have a peaceable interview with him; and
when Hubert consented to this, Louis sent special messangers to him to
a postern gate which seemed a fit place for the interview. The
messengers who were sent to him were the earl of Salisbury, surnamed
William Longespee, who brought with him for security Thomas de Burgh,
brother of the said Hubert, who had been taken prisoner at the castle
of Norwich, and three of the most noble of the French. Hubert then
came to the postern, followed by five cross-bow men with bows bent and
arrows fitted, so that if there was necessity, they should not spare
their enemies. Earl William then said, 'The death of king John, once
our lord, is, I believe no secret to you, Hubert, nor are you ignorant
of the oath of Louis, who has sworn, that when he takes possession of
this castle by force of arms, all found in it shall be hung without
fail. Consult therefore your own safety and honour. You cannot long
retain this castle; the power of our lord increases daily, whle that of
the king decreases, by strong daily assaults; or you will at least
perish of hunger, unless you be wise and yield to my advice, for you
see all hope of help has vanished: therefore without any delay or
difficulty, give up this castle to Louis, and you will not be branded
with perfidy, since you cannot hold possession of it much longer; and
you see that others vie with one another in giving their fealty to
him.' Thomas, his brother, moreover said to him with tears, 'My dear
brother, have compassion on yourself, on me, and all of us, by yielding
to the advice of these nobles; for we shall then all be freed from
impending destruction.' The earl added, 'Listen to my advice, Hubert,
and obey the will of our lord Louis, and he will give you, as an
inheritance, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and you will also
become his chief consellor and friend; but, if you do not this, your
brother Thomas will be hung, and you in a short time will suffer the
same punishment.' To this Hubert then replied: 'Earl, wicked traitor
that you are, although king John, our lord and your brother, be dead,
he has heirs, namely your nephew, whom, although every body else
deserted him, you, his uncle, ought not to abandon, but ought to be a
second father to him; why then, based and wicked man that you are, do
you talk thus to me?' then casting a scowling ook on him and breaking
into a harsher tone, he added, 'Do not speak another word, because by
the lance of God, if you open your mouth to say any thing more, you
shall all be pierced with numbers of arrows, nor will I even spare my
own brother.' The earl therefore, and those who were with him seeing
that they would be killed in the flash of an eye, because the cross-bow
men were ready to discharge their weapons, retreated at nce, glad to
escape alive and uninjured. When Louis heard this, although he was
sorry and enraged, he greatly applauded the firmness of Hubert."
[Reference: Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History: The History of
England from the Descent of the Saxons to A.D. 1235, pg. 373].

"In the same year on the day of the nativity of St. John the Baptist,
Louis, with a powerful foce of knights and soldiers laid seige to Dover
castle, having first sent to his father for a petraria which was called
in French "Malvoisine;" and the French having disposed this and other
engines before the castle, they began to battle the walls incessantly;
but Hubert de Burgh, a brave knight, with a hundred and forty knights
and a large number of soldiers who were defending the castle, destroyed
many of the enemy, until the French feeling their loss removed their
tents and engines farther from the castle; on this Louis was greatly
enraged and swore he would not leave the place till the castle was
taken and all the garrison hung. They therefore, to strike terror into
them, built a number of shops and other buildings in front of the
entrance to the castle, so that the place appeared like a market; for
they hope that they would, by hunger and a protracted siege, force them
to surrender, as they could not subdue them by force of arms."
[Reference: Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History: The History of
England from the Descent of the Saxons to A.D. 1235, pp. 374-375].

(3) Source: W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk, 3 (1909): 183.

Sub Kersey. The Priory Manor.

"Thomas de Burgh is said to have founded a hospital or free chapel of
St. Mary and St. Anthony here previous to the year 1218, Geoffrey de
Burgh, his brother, archdeaon of Norwich, being witness to the grants
which were confirmed by Pope Honorius in the following year. This
Thomas married Nesta de Cokefield. It would seem that this hospital,
some few years afterwards, was converted into the priory of canons we
have mentioned, the denomination being "the Church and Canons of our
Lady and St. Anthony of Kersey." Nesta, after the death of her
husband, Thomas de Burgh, became the wife of John de Beauchamp, and in
1240 increased her gifts to the priory, bestowing among other
hereditaments the mother church of Kersey. John de Beauchamp shortly
afterwards [died], and Nesta, in her widowhood, confirmed these
donations. Nesta took a third husband, Matthew de Leyham, whose family
were seated at Leyham, in this Hundred, and a last dnation, with the
consent of Matthew de Leyham, was made by Nesta to these canons, she
giving them, with her body to be buried in their church, certain lands
and services in Lindsey and kersey. She died without issue about 1248.
The grant of Nesta de Cokefield specifies the messuage, late the
hospital, and 30 acres of land adjoining, and the tithes of the mills
of Cockfield, Semer, Lindsey, and Kersey, to sustain the lights in the
Church of St. Anthony. Amongst the Ancient Deeds in the Exchequer and
Treasurury of the Receipt preserved in the Public Record Office is a
grant by Nesta de 'Kokefeld' to the canons of St. Mary and St. Anthony,
Kersey, of pasture for 6 cows in her park of Kersey in frankalmoin."

[Note: For an abstract of the above mentioned grant of Nesta de
Cockfield which is preserved in the PRO, see Item #8 below].

(4) Charter issued by Nesta de Cockfield, widow of Thomas de Burgh, to
Kersey Priory granting the church of Kersey, Suffolk, and other lands.
This charter presumably dates sometime before 26 May 1240 (see item #3
below).

"Universis sanctæ matris ecclesiæ filiis ad quos præsens scriptum
pervenerit, ego Nesta de Cokefeld, quondam uxor Thomæ de Burgo,
æternam in Domino salutem. Noverit universitas vestra me intuitu
caritatis et pro salute animæ meæ, et antecessorum et successorum
meorum, in viduitate mea dedisse et concessisse, et hac præsenti carta
mea confirmasse Deo et sanctæ Mariæ et beato Antonio de Kerseya, et
fratribus ibidem ministrantibus Deo, in puram et perpetuam elemosinam,
matricem ecclesiam de Kerseya cum omnibus pertinentiis suis. Et
quendam boscum qui vocatur Piscroft, qui jacet inter boscum Johannis
filii Adæ et Robertis sacerdotis, et unam gravam quæ vocatur Leghes.
Præterea dedi et concessi et confirmavi prædictis fratribus scilicet
xv. acras quæ jacent ex orientali parte prædictæ domus, et abutant
super cheminum quod tendit versus Corsford, et octo acras quæ abutant
suoer cimiterium prædicti loci versus aquilonem, et duas acras quas
Nicholaus de Somere tenuit. Et duas acreas et dimidiam super quas
domus prædicta est fundata. Et duas acres et dimid. quas Robertus de
Herelond tenuit. Et mesuagium ubi posita erat domus hospitalis. Et
totum mesuagium apud Westm. quod fuit Aldredi filii Gervasii clerici.
Et decimas omnium molendinorum meorum, scilicet de Cokefeld et de
Semere, et de Leleseya, et de Kerseya, ad sustinendum lumen prædictæ
capellæ. Habendum et tenendum in liberam, puram, et perpetuam
elemosinam in perpetuum, soluta et quieta ab omni seculari exactione.
Et prædicta Nesta et hæredes mei warantizabimus prædictis fratribus
prænominatam ecclesiam de Kerseya cum omnibus pertinentiis suis,
contra omnes homines et foeminas. Hiis testibus, Johanne persona de
Groton, Hugone decano, Ric. capellano de Kerseya, Julano de Nova-villa,
Waltero de Wanci, Radulfo de Bellocampo, Philipp. de Astin., Samsone de
Kersey, Johanne fil. Adæ, Johanne Grimbald, Ada fil. Henrici
capellani, Walt. clerico de Groton, et multis aliis." [Reference:
William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 592].

(5) Fine levied 26 May 1240 between the Priory of Saint Anthony of
Kersey and John de Beauchamp and Nesta his wife.

"Finis levatus in crastino Ascens. Domini xxiiij. H. iij. [26 May 1240]
inter Pr. sancti Antonii et Kerseya quer. et Johannem de Bello-campo et
Nestam uxorem ejus imped. de xiiij. acris terræ et quatuor acris
pasturæ et xij. acris bosci cum pertin. in Kerseya, et Leleseya, et
advocatione ecclesiæ de Kerseya, esse jus prioris et ecclesiæ suæ de
Kerseya, ut illa quæ idem Pr. et ecclesia prædicta habent de dono
prædictorum Johannis et Nestæ." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 592].

(6) Charter of Nesta de Cockfield, widow of John de Beauchamp, to
Kersey Priory. The charter dates after 26 May 1240. The seal attached
to this charter displays a cock and bears the legend "SIGILL. NESTE DE
COCFELD."

"Sciant præsentes et futuri quod ego Nesta de Cokefeld, in propria
viduitate mea, pro salute animæ, et omnium antecessorum et successorum
meorum, concessi, et hac præsenti carta mea confirmavi Deo et
ecclesiæ beatæ Mariæ et sancti Anthonii de Kerseya et canonicis Deo
servientibus ibidem et servituris imperpetuum omnes donationes quas
Johannes de Bello-campo quondam vir meus et ego eis contulimus,
scilicet advocationem matricis ecclesiæ de Kerseya cum pertinentiis,
et totam terram cum pertinentiis quam aliquando tenuimus in dominico
quæ vocatur Piriefeld in Kerseya, et totam pasturam cum pertinentiis
quæ vocatur Cotenebrom, jacentem inter dominicam culturam meam et viam
quæ venit de domo dominæ Sarre quondam uxoris Walter de Groton versus
ecclesiam de Kerseya, et totum bosum cum pertinentiis quod vocatur
Piscroft in villa de Leleseya quod aliquando tenuimus in dominico.
Habendum et tenendum in puram et perpetuam elemosinam, ab omni seculari
exactione quieta et soluta, ad sustentationem canonicorum qui pro
temporibus pro salute animæ meæ, et omnium antecessorum et
successorum meorum, in honore beatæ virginis Mariæ in dicta ecclesia
sancti Antonii divina celebrabunt. Et ut hæc mea concessio et cartæ
meæ confirmatio rata et stabilis et inconcussa permaneat, sigilli mei
appositione corroboravi. Hiis testibus, domino Waltero de Wanci,
domino Richardo de Fresingefeld, Rogero de Aldam, Willelmo Justic.,
Willielmo fil. suo, Alex. de Camera, Samsone de Grotun, Hugone de
Aldam, Radulpho Fabro, Hugone fratre suo, Willielmo Gelnus, Roberto de
Hibernia, Rogero Sturgull, et aliis." [Reference: William Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 592-593].

(7) Charter issued by Nesta de Cockfield, with the consent of her
husband, Matthew de Leyham, to Kersey Priory.

"Sciant præsentes et futuri, quod ego Nesta de Cokefeld, ex concensu
et bona voluntate domini mei Mathæi de Leyham, pro salute animæ meæ,
et omnium parentum meorum, concessi, dedi, et hac præsenti carta mea
confirmavi Deo et ecclesiæ beatæ Mariæ et sancti Antonii de Kerseya,
et canonicis ibidem Deo servientibus et servituris imperpetuum, cum
corpore meo in dicta ecclesia sepeliendo, totam terram cum omnibus
pertinentiis quam habui inter boscum de Alstonesho, et regalem viam
inter Galienyard et cursum aquæ quæ venit de domo Adæ janitoris, et
totam terram cum omnibus pertinentiis quam habui jacentam ex utraque
parte de Lym .... leye, scilicet in villa de Lelleseya, et homagium et
servicium Bartholomæi filii Rogeri fabri de Kerseya, et homagia et
servicia Williel. del Broc, et Elye de Gardino, et homagia et servicia
Roberti de Chavelingeworth, et Roberti Carpentarii, et Godmanni filii
Osberti Wyldegos de Keyseya, et servicia et consuetudines quas Gunnilda
relicta Johannis Gerard mihi reddere consuevit. Habendum et tenendum
hæc omni prædicta dictis loco et canonicis, in liberam, puram, er
perpetuam elemosinam imperpetuum. Et ego prædicta Nesta de Cokefeld,
et hæredes mei warantizabimus prædictis loco et canonicis totam
prædictam terram, et totum prædictum homagium, et servicium et
consuetudines, contra omnes mortales imperpetuum. Hiis testibus,
domino Roberto de Ruylli, domino Roberto de Leyham, Willielmo de
Huntingfeld, Osberto de Cokefeld, Symone de Watefeld, Nicholao de
Hasting, Rogero de Aldham, Willlielmo Justic., Sampsone de Grotene,
Alex. de Camera, Willielmo de Aldham, Willielmo Gelus, Ranulfo Fabro,
Hugone fratre suo, Rogero Sturgil, et aliis." [Reference: William
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 593].
:
(8) PRO Document, E 40/3749.

Grant by Nesta de Kokefeld, to the canons of St. Mary and St. Anthony,
Keresey, of pasture for six cows at the time of pasture in her park of
Keresey, in frank almoin. Witnesses:- Sir Richard de Fresingefeld,
Roger de Aldham, and others (named). (Suffolk).

An abstract of the above grant is available online at the following
website: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp.

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 00:59:17

Doug,

Thank You for the good post. I just finished reading the second post. I
noticed you found that Thomas and Hubert father name was Walter nice
find.

Best Always
Mike Welch
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post earlier this evening, I presented evidence which indicates
that Sir Thomas de Burgh (died before 1233), brother of Sir Hubert de
Burgh, held property at Upwell, Norfolk under Sir William Bardolf, the
step-son of Sir Hubert de Burgh.

The following information has been found in the online edition of VCH
Cambridge, volume 4
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... reham#n100).
This material relates to the history of the Burgh family's land
holding at Upwell:

"The priory of Walsingham (Norf.) also received grants from the de
Burghs and other local families; (fn. 1) Its lands were valued at £1
10s. in 1291 but at only 16s. in 1535. (fn. 2). ... Besides Ramsey
other monasteries not locally situated in the district held property in
Upwell and Outwell. Of these the abbey of West Dereham (Norf.) was the
most extensively endowed. During the 13th century several local persons
made grants to it. The most important of these benefactors was William
le Curteis, who gave 23 acres, 7s. 4d. in rents and the homage of five
tenants in 'Welle', (fn. 94) and Thomas de Burch, who gave a messuage
and 50 acres in Upwell (fn. 95)."

Footnote 1: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5. The total area is
put at 380 acres, but the 20 grants or so copied into the cartulary do
not amount to anything like so much.

Footnote 2: Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iii, 385-6.

Footnote 95: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b." END OF QUOTE.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
It appears that the village of Upwell lies partly in Norfolk and partly
in Cambridgeshire, which explains why its history is found in VCH
Cambridge. Because the grants of the Burgh family to Walsingham Priory
are contained in an unpublished manuscript at the British Library, it
is impossible to say who in the Burgh family made the grants in
question to Walsingham Priory. However, Complete Peerage elsewhere
states that Earl Hubert de Burgh gave the advowson of Oulton, Norfolk
to Walsingham Priory for the soul of Alice his mother who was buried in
Walsingham church [Reference: Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133, footnote
a].

Thus, it would appear virtually certain that either Sir Hubert de Burgh
and/or his brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh, were the individuals who
granted lands at Upwell, Norfolk to Walsingham Priory. And, Sir Thomas
de Burgh (brother of Sir Hubert) is presumably the same person as the
"Thomas de Burch" who gave property at Upwell to West Dereham Priory.

VCH Cambridge, volume 4, includes information regarding the
overlordship at Upwell by the Bardolf and Warenne families which they
held as part of their honour of Wormegay, Norfolk. The VCH account
makes no mention, however, that Sir Hubert de Burgh would have
possessed the Upwell fee from at least 1211 to 1243, as part of the
Wormegay honour, in right of his wife, Beatrice de Warenne's
inheritance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 21:22:33

Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.

The reason why Sir Hubert's brother referred to himself as "Thomas son
of Walter de Burgh" in the one charter at Upwell, Norfolk is because
there was another nearby Sir Thomas de Burgh seated at Borough Green,
Cambridgeshire. The two men were about the same age, both were
knights, and they were evidently related to each other (I'll discuss
their kinship in a future post). The Cambridgeshire man appears in
some records as "Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh," again to distinguish
him from "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh." As pure coincidence, Thomas
son of Thomas de Burgh arranged to marry Alice d'Oyry (the woman who
Blomfield erroneously alleged was Sir Hubert de Burgh's grandmother).
Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh did not marry Alice d'Oyry; instead, she
married William de Beaumont, by whom she was the mother of Joan de
Beaumont, wife of Reyner de Burgh. So, once again, we come full circle
to Joan and Reyner de Burgh.

VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 6-7 states that Thomas de Burgh (brother of
Hubert) was granted the manor of Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire in
1199-1200 by the king. He was still holding the manor in 1225. In
March 1227 the king granted the manor to Hubert brother of Thomas. It
eventually passed to Hubert's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, who
granted the manor to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the
1270's.

From this information, we learn that Thomas de Burgh (brother of
Hubert) was living in 1225, but evidently dead without issue in or

before March 1227. This agrees well with Copinger's statements that
Thomas de Burgh's widow, Nesta, gave the advowson of Kersey, Suffolk to
Kersey Priory and that Thomas de Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich,
"appropriated" Kersey church "to the use of the canons" in 1227
[Reference: W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk (1905): 84]. I
believe Bishop Blundeville's appropriation followed the gift of Thomas
de Burgh's widow, Nesta. Taken together, this means that Thomas de
Burgh (brother of Hubert) died without issue sometime between 1225 and
March 1227.

If so, then there is a tight time frame for Thomas (brother of Hubert)
to fit as the Thomas son of Walter who held property at Upwell,
Norfolk. We know that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell was
living at the time that Angerus was abbot of West Dereham, Norfolk.
The book, Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, 2nd edition,
2001), pg. 199, shows that a certain Ralph occurs as abbot of West
Dereham from 1218-1225, and that he was followed by Angerus who occurs
in 1236. Dugdale says that "Angerius" was abbot in 1231-1232.
Provided that Angerus became abbot in or before March 1227, then there
is sufficient time for Thomas brother of Hubert to have witnessed
Angerus' charter just before Thomas died.

For conclusive proof that Thomas brother of Hubert de Burgh is the same
man as Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell, one will need to
examine the Burgh family charters cited by VCH Cambridge, vol. 4, which
involve grants by Burgh family members at Upwell to Walsingham Priory
and West Dereham Abbey. These charters are unpublished. For
interest's sake, the reference for them again is as follows:

1. Walsingham Priory: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5.

2. West Dereham Abbey: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b.

These charters should confirm whether or not Thomas son of Walter de
Burgh of Upwell is the same individual as Thomas, brother of Hubert de
Burgh, especially if they are witnessed by Thomas and Hubert's other
brother, Geoffrey de Burgh, who was Archdeacon of Norwich in this time
period. Once it has been confirmed that Thomas son of Walter at Upwell
is the same person as Thomas brother of Hubert, then we should have
conclusive evidence that Sir Hubert de Burgh's father was named Walter
de Burgh. We already know that Sir Hubert de Burgh made at least one
grant to Walsingham Priory. So that part looks good.

As a final comment, I might add that the passage of Thomas de Burgh's
lands at Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire to his brother, Hubert de Burgh,
in 1227 makes it highly unlikely that Thomas and Hubert were younger
brothers of William de Burgh (died 1206), lord of Connaught in Ireland,
as claimed by Ellis. Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Doug,

Thank You for the good post. I just finished reading the second post. I
noticed you found that Thomas and Hubert father name was Walter nice
find.

Best Always
Mike Welch

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jan 2006 21:44:11

Douglas Richardson wrote:
It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.


If this is the case, it may tend to confirm Ellis's suggestion as to the
parentage of William de Burgh, mentioned in CP, vol. 12 part 2, p. 171, note
f (on p. 172):

"The parentage of William and Hubert has not been ascertained but
Ellis, in a well documented Appendix, "The Ancestry and Birthplace of
Hubert de
Burgh" ([Hubert de Burgh], pp. 183-202), suggests, with reservations, that
their father may have
been Walter de Burgh, of Burgh-next-Aylsham, Norfolk; cf. Her. and Gen.,
vol. iv,
pp. 337-40 ..."

Incidentally, is there a particular reason to interpret the "Vtwell" of the
charter as "Upwell"? There is another place called Outwell just across the
border in Cambridgeshire, which looks like a better match.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 22:02:59

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.


If this is the case, it may tend to confirm Ellis's suggestion as to the
parentage of William de Burgh, mentioned in CP, vol. 12 part 2, p. 171, note
f (on p. 172).

Yes, it would. More on that later, when the Walsingham and West
Dereham charters have been examined.

Incidentally, is there a particular reason to interpret the "Vtwell" of the
charter as "Upwell"? There is another place called Outwell just across the
border in Cambridgeshire, which looks like a better match.

Yes, you are correct. Outwell is probably the place intended, not
Upwell. The two places lay side by side on the Norfolk-Cambridgeshire
border.

Chris Phillips

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 23:30:58

Dear Newsgroup ~

A review of the documents of Walsingham Priory published by William
Dugdale show that there were at least two members of the Burgh family
who gave property to that priory. These gifts are mentioned in
Monasticon Anglican, 6 (1) (1830): 74:

(1) Richard de Burgh, who gave 12 acres of land, which the said Richard
held of John Marshal in his assart of Folesham in Loch. Gift prior to
39 Henry III.

(2) Hubert de Burgh, who gave the churches of Bedingham and Oulton.

This information can be viewed online at the following weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=8006.

As best I can tell, Dugdale doesn't mention any gifts by the Burgh
family which involve lands at Outwell or Upwell, Norfolk, although VCH
Cambridge 4 indicates that such a gift (or gifts) was (or were) made.
Also, I'm uncertain as the identity of Richard de Burgh above. He
could well be Richard de Burgh, son and heir of William de Burgh (died
1206), lord of Connaught. Perhaps someone can identify the locality
called "Folesham in Loch" for us. Oulton is clearly Oulton, Norfolk,
near Cawston which one was of Hubert de Burgh's chief properties. I
assume Bedingham is Badingham, Suffolk.

I see nearby Cawston is a locality named Booton, Norfolk, which may
well be the home parish of Robert de "Boutun." Robert de Boutun was
the cousin and heir of Sir Hubert de Burgh's kinsman, Bishop Thomas de
Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich. Oulton, Cawston, and Booton are all
located by Burgh next Aylsham, Norfolk, the reputed ancestral home of
Sir Hubert de Burgh's family. For a modern map of the area, see the
following weblink:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi? ... right.y=95

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av CED » 25 jan 2006 17:18:40

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Doug,

Thank You for the good post. I just finished reading the second post. I
noticed you found that Thomas and Hubert father name was Walter nice
find.

Mike Welch:

I understand that you are not well read; but that is no excuse for
crediting Richardson with Walter as being the (supposed) father of
Hubert de Burgh. Clarence Ellis in_Hubert de Burgh_, Appendix I, made
that suggestion more than 50 years ago.

Why do you so seek Richardson's approval? Do your own research. You
should have learned from experience with this list that dealing with
Richardson's stuff can be risky.

CED


Best Always
Mike Welch
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post earlier this evening, I presented evidence which indicates
that Sir Thomas de Burgh (died before 1233), brother of Sir Hubert de
Burgh, held property at Upwell, Norfolk under Sir William Bardolf, the
step-son of Sir Hubert de Burgh.

The following information has been found in the online edition of VCH
Cambridge, volume 4
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... reham#n100).
This material relates to the history of the Burgh family's land
holding at Upwell:

"The priory of Walsingham (Norf.) also received grants from the de
Burghs and other local families; (fn. 1) Its lands were valued at £1
10s. in 1291 but at only 16s. in 1535. (fn. 2). ... Besides Ramsey
other monasteries not locally situated in the district held property in
Upwell and Outwell. Of these the abbey of West Dereham (Norf.) was the
most extensively endowed. During the 13th century several local persons
made grants to it. The most important of these benefactors was William
le Curteis, who gave 23 acres, 7s. 4d. in rents and the homage of five
tenants in 'Welle', (fn. 94) and Thomas de Burch, who gave a messuage
and 50 acres in Upwell (fn. 95)."

Footnote 1: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5. The total area is
put at 380 acres, but the 20 grants or so copied into the cartulary do
not amount to anything like so much.

Footnote 2: Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iii, 385-6.

Footnote 95: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b." END OF QUOTE.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
It appears that the village of Upwell lies partly in Norfolk and partly
in Cambridgeshire, which explains why its history is found in VCH
Cambridge. Because the grants of the Burgh family to Walsingham Priory
are contained in an unpublished manuscript at the British Library, it
is impossible to say who in the Burgh family made the grants in
question to Walsingham Priory. However, Complete Peerage elsewhere
states that Earl Hubert de Burgh gave the advowson of Oulton, Norfolk
to Walsingham Priory for the soul of Alice his mother who was buried in
Walsingham church [Reference: Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133, footnote
a].

Thus, it would appear virtually certain that either Sir Hubert de Burgh
and/or his brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh, were the individuals who
granted lands at Upwell, Norfolk to Walsingham Priory. And, Sir Thomas
de Burgh (brother of Sir Hubert) is presumably the same person as the
"Thomas de Burch" who gave property at Upwell to West Dereham Priory.

VCH Cambridge, volume 4, includes information regarding the
overlordship at Upwell by the Bardolf and Warenne families which they
held as part of their honour of Wormegay, Norfolk. The VCH account
makes no mention, however, that Sir Hubert de Burgh would have
possessed the Upwell fee from at least 1211 to 1243, as part of the
Wormegay honour, in right of his wife, Beatrice de Warenne's
inheritance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jan 2006 18:42:15

CED wrote:
I understand that you are not well read; but that is no excuse for
crediting Richardson with Walter as being the (supposed) father of
Hubert de Burgh. Clarence Ellis in_Hubert de Burgh_, Appendix I, made
that suggestion more than 50 years ago.

CED

Ellis made the suggestion, but, as you are well aware, he had no
evidence to prove the connection. I believe I've found evidence which
proves the connection. Please see a copy of my post below.

Mr. Ellis was evidently not aware that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh
who held lands at Outwell, Norfolk was the same individual as Earl
Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh. Once that is
established, then we should know once and for all that Earl Hubert de
Burgh's father was Walter de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.

The reason why Sir Hubert's brother referred to himself as "Thomas son
of Walter de Burgh" in the one charter at Upwell, Norfolk is because
there was another nearby Sir Thomas de Burgh seated at Borough Green,
Cambridgeshire. The two men were about the same age, both were
knights, and they were evidently related to each other (I'll discuss
their kinship in a future post). The Cambridgeshire man appears in
some records as "Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh," again to distinguish
him from "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh." As pure coincidence, Thomas
son of Thomas de Burgh arranged to marry Alice d'Oyry (the woman who
Blomfield erroneously alleged was Sir Hubert de Burgh's grandmother).
Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh did not marry Alice d'Oyry; instead, she
married William de Beaumont, by whom she was the mother of Joan de
Beaumont, wife of Reyner de Burgh. So, once again, we come full circle
to Joan and Reyner de Burgh.

VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 6-7 states that Thomas de Burgh (brother of
Hubert) was granted the manor of Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire in
1199-1200 by the king. He was still holding the manor in 1225. In
March 1227 the king granted the manor to Hubert brother of Thomas. It
eventually passed to Hubert's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, who
granted the manor to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the
1270's.

From this information, we learn that Thomas de Burgh (brother of

Hubert) was living in 1225, but evidently dead without issue in or
before March 1227. This agrees well with Copinger's statements that
Thomas de Burgh's widow, Nesta, gave the advowson of Kersey, Suffolk to
Kersey Priory and that Thomas de Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich,
"appropriated" Kersey church "to the use of the canons" in 1227
[Reference: W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk (1905): 84]. I
believe Bishop Blundeville's appropriation followed the gift of Thomas
de Burgh's widow, Nesta. Taken together, this means that Thomas de
Burgh (brother of Hubert) died without issue sometime between 1225 and
March 1227.

If so, then there is a tight time frame for Thomas (brother of Hubert)
to fit as the Thomas son of Walter who held property at Upwell,
Norfolk. We know that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell was
living at the time that Angerus was abbot of West Dereham, Norfolk.
The book, Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, 2nd edition,
2001), pg. 199, shows that a certain Ralph occurs as abbot of West
Dereham from 1218-1225, and that he was followed by Angerus who occurs
in 1236. Dugdale says that "Angerius" was abbot in 1231-1232.
Provided that Angerus became abbot in or before March 1227, then there
is sufficient time for Thomas brother of Hubert to have witnessed
Angerus' charter just before Thomas died.

For conclusive proof that Thomas brother of Hubert de Burgh is the same
man as Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell, one will need to
examine the Burgh family charters cited by VCH Cambridge, vol. 4, which
involve grants by Burgh family members at Upwell to Walsingham Priory
and West Dereham Abbey. These charters are unpublished. For
interest's sake, the reference for them again is as follows:

1. Walsingham Priory: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5.

2. West Dereham Abbey: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b.

These charters should confirm whether or not Thomas son of Walter de
Burgh of Upwell is the same individual as Thomas, brother of Hubert de
Burgh, especially if they are witnessed by Thomas and Hubert's other
brother, Geoffrey de Burgh, who was Archdeacon of Norwich in this time
period. Once it has been confirmed that Thomas son of Walter at Upwell
is the same person as Thomas brother of Hubert, then we should have
conclusive evidence that Sir Hubert de Burgh's father was named Walter
de Burgh. We already know that Sir Hubert de Burgh made at least one
grant to Walsingham Priory. So that part looks good.

As a final comment, I might add that the passage of Thomas de Burgh's
lands at Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire to his brother, Hubert de Burgh,
in 1227 makes it highly unlikely that Thomas and Hubert were younger
brothers of William de Burgh (died 1206), lord of Connaught in Ireland,
as claimed by Ellis. Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av CED » 25 jan 2006 19:11:03

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:
I understand that you are not well read; but that is no excuse for
crediting Richardson with Walter as being the (supposed) father of
Hubert de Burgh. Clarence Ellis in_Hubert de Burgh_, Appendix I, made
that suggestion more than 50 years ago.

CED

Ellis made the suggestion, but, as you are well aware, he had no
evidence to prove the connection. I believe I've found evidence which
proves the connection. Please see a copy of my post below.

To the Newsgroup:

(1) The identifications made by Richardson are not conclusive, even on
the basis of what he has chosen to post. He has jumped to a conclusion.
(The Thomas' de Burgh have long been confused. Just as was the case
with Bp. Geoffrey's aunt, the father of either of the two Thomas' he
mentions is not necessarily the father of Hubert.)

(2) We cannot be certain of the validity of evidence puported by
Richardson and his rendering of them. He has not proven that he
understands medieval documents or the languages used in them. He has
proven himself too eager to prove a point (sometimes in error) and
unable admit error. Does he still remember the reference to Hubert's
otherwise unknown wife, Alice?

CED


Mr. Ellis was evidently not aware that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh
who held lands at Outwell, Norfolk was the same individual as Earl
Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh. Once that is
established, then we should know once and for all that Earl Hubert de
Burgh's father was Walter de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.

The reason why Sir Hubert's brother referred to himself as "Thomas son
of Walter de Burgh" in the one charter at Upwell, Norfolk is because
there was another nearby Sir Thomas de Burgh seated at Borough Green,
Cambridgeshire. The two men were about the same age, both were
knights, and they were evidently related to each other (I'll discuss
their kinship in a future post). The Cambridgeshire man appears in
some records as "Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh," again to distinguish
him from "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh." As pure coincidence, Thomas
son of Thomas de Burgh arranged to marry Alice d'Oyry (the woman who
Blomfield erroneously alleged was Sir Hubert de Burgh's grandmother).
Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh did not marry Alice d'Oyry; instead, she
married William de Beaumont, by whom she was the mother of Joan de
Beaumont, wife of Reyner de Burgh. So, once again, we come full circle
to Joan and Reyner de Burgh.

VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 6-7 states that Thomas de Burgh (brother of
Hubert) was granted the manor of Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire in
1199-1200 by the king. He was still holding the manor in 1225. In
March 1227 the king granted the manor to Hubert brother of Thomas. It
eventually passed to Hubert's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, who
granted the manor to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the
1270's.

From this information, we learn that Thomas de Burgh (brother of

Hubert) was living in 1225, but evidently dead without issue in or
before March 1227. This agrees well with Copinger's statements that
Thomas de Burgh's widow, Nesta, gave the advowson of Kersey, Suffolk to
Kersey Priory and that Thomas de Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich,
"appropriated" Kersey church "to the use of the canons" in 1227
[Reference: W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk (1905): 84]. I
believe Bishop Blundeville's appropriation followed the gift of Thomas
de Burgh's widow, Nesta. Taken together, this means that Thomas de
Burgh (brother of Hubert) died without issue sometime between 1225 and
March 1227.

If so, then there is a tight time frame for Thomas (brother of Hubert)
to fit as the Thomas son of Walter who held property at Upwell,
Norfolk. We know that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell was
living at the time that Angerus was abbot of West Dereham, Norfolk.
The book, Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, 2nd edition,
2001), pg. 199, shows that a certain Ralph occurs as abbot of West
Dereham from 1218-1225, and that he was followed by Angerus who occurs
in 1236. Dugdale says that "Angerius" was abbot in 1231-1232.
Provided that Angerus became abbot in or before March 1227, then there
is sufficient time for Thomas brother of Hubert to have witnessed
Angerus' charter just before Thomas died.

For conclusive proof that Thomas brother of Hubert de Burgh is the same
man as Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell, one will need to
examine the Burgh family charters cited by VCH Cambridge, vol. 4, which
involve grants by Burgh family members at Upwell to Walsingham Priory
and West Dereham Abbey. These charters are unpublished. For
interest's sake, the reference for them again is as follows:

1. Walsingham Priory: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5.

2. West Dereham Abbey: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b.

These charters should confirm whether or not Thomas son of Walter de
Burgh of Upwell is the same individual as Thomas, brother of Hubert de
Burgh, especially if they are witnessed by Thomas and Hubert's other
brother, Geoffrey de Burgh, who was Archdeacon of Norwich in this time
period. Once it has been confirmed that Thomas son of Walter at Upwell
is the same person as Thomas brother of Hubert, then we should have
conclusive evidence that Sir Hubert de Burgh's father was named Walter
de Burgh. We already know that Sir Hubert de Burgh made at least one
grant to Walsingham Priory. So that part looks good.

As a final comment, I might add that the passage of Thomas de Burgh's
lands at Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire to his brother, Hubert de Burgh,
in 1227 makes it highly unlikely that Thomas and Hubert were younger
brothers of William de Burgh (died 1206), lord of Connaught in Ireland,
as claimed by Ellis. Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jan 2006 19:44:25

CED wrote:

\> (1) The identifications made by Richardson are not conclusive, even
on
the basis of what he has chosen to post. He has jumped to a conclusion.
(The Thomas' de Burgh have long been confused. Just as was the case
with Bp. Geoffrey's aunt, the father of either of the two Thomas' he
mentions is not necessarily the father of Hubert.)

CED

I've set forth evidence which I think is compelling and persuasive.
The evidence speaks for itself.

By the way, since you've mentioned Ellis once again, just what evidence
did he publish regarding Earl Hubert de Burgh's parentage?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av CED » 25 jan 2006 20:26:52

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:

\> (1) The identifications made by Richardson are not conclusive, even
on
the basis of what he has chosen to post. He has jumped to a conclusion.
(The Thomas' de Burgh have long been confused. Just as was the case
with Bp. Geoffrey's aunt, the father of either of the two Thomas' he
mentions is not necessarily the father of Hubert.)

CED

I've set forth evidence which I think is compelling and persuasive.
The evidence speaks for itself.

By the way, since you've mentioned Ellis once again, just what evidence
did he publish regarding Earl Hubert de Burgh's parentage?

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson was the first to mention Ellis' Book on (I think) 02 January
2006. He led us to believe that he had read it. Now he he asks me to
explain Ellis' book.

Here Richardson goes again, twisting the evidence and shifting the
burden of proof. We should know that it is his oft used ploy; yet
somehow everytime he does it, I am taken aback at the brazen repetition
of this ploy.

CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jan 2006 20:39:52

Dear CED ~

You keep quoting Ellis as your authority, but won't discuss his
evidence. What have you got to hide (besides your identity)?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

Legg inn av CED » 25 jan 2006 22:40:34

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

You keep quoting Ellis as your authority, but won't discuss his
evidence. What have you got to hide (besides your identity)?


To the Newsgroup:

Apparently Richardson cannot read English any better than he does
Greek, French, Italian, or Latin. (Though I do not recall his claiming
competence in English as he has the others) Where have I quoted or
asserted Ellis as an authority for anything? He introduced Ellis'
book, implying that he had read it. I pointed out what Ellis wrote,
thinking that Richardson, having read Ellis, knew better.

He is twisting again. I have no obligation to defend Ellis. In fact,
I do not agree with Ellis on several issues - which I shall not list
for Richardson's sake. Richardson foments a petard, hoping to hoist
others on it. Most of us have learned his ploys.

By the way, thinking back to Richardson's post in which he laid out a
neat scheme for graduating 12th Century English society, I remember his
statement that there was a class of landed esquires. Where did he get
that silly idea. Does he know what an esquire was in the 12th Century?


I think that a re-examination of the archives is in order. I have a
list of DRisms already (shouldn't call them corrections or additions,
just isms).

CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»