he had criticised her for the years of birth mentioned in that line, I could
understand. Yes, Margaret of Brotherton seems wrong, but are we sure? In
those days people were referred to by their place of birth. Do we know where
this Margaret was born? I think we have her born circa 1320, but no place of
birth.
I have not seen the records Richardson maintains she was recorded as
Margaret Marshal, "doubtless from her title Countess Marshal". According to
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, page 198, she "claimed" to execute the
office of Earl Marshal of England by deputy at the coronation of King
Richard II but was disallowed. This coronation took place on 16 July 1377.
Richardson : "As far as I know, she never occurs as either Margaret of
Norfolk, nor as Margaret of Brotherton".
I think we can agree with the Brotherton part, as long as she was not born
there, but Margaret of Norfolk being wrong?
On 29 September 1397 she was created for life Duchess of Norfolk. For at
least three years (she died in 1400) she was Duchess of Norfolk, surely she
would have been referred to as such?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:19 AM
Subject: Margaret Marshal, wife of John de Segrave, Knt., and Walter de
Mauny,Knt.
Dear Marilyn ~
In your 2nd Descent, you have listed Margaret of Brotherton, born 1320
(your Gen. 9).
I have seen many records of this lady. In her adult life (after her
father's death), she occurs regularly in records as Margaret Marshal,
doubtless from her title Countess Marshal. See, for example, her
petition to the king published in Rees, Calender of Ancient Petitions
Rel. to Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 28) (1975):
375-376.
As far as I know, she never occurs as either Margaret of Norfolk, nor
as Margaret of Brotherton.
There is one record of her found in an ancient pedigree of the Segrave
family which refers to her as Margaret of Brotherton:
"Qui Johannes [de Segrave] nupsit domine Margarete de Brotherton; de
quibus Johannes de Segrave & Elizabetha" [Reference: "Chronicis apud
Chaucombe" in Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795):
137-139; 3(1) (1800): 240].
The rendering of her name as Margaret of Brotherton in this pedigree
seems odd to me. If Margaret was known as anything as a young girl,
she would have been called "Margaret daughter of Thomas, Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England," not as Margaret of Brotherton.
As for Brotherton itself, this was the birthplace of Margaret's father,
Thomas, Earl of Norfolk; hence, he occurs occasionally in records as
Thomas of Brotherton. Brotherton was not his surname; rather, it was
simply a moniker ... much like we might refer to you in modern times
informally as "Merliyn in Australia." Australia would not be your
surname.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
Dear James
Again, according to my PAF programme, he has 12 descents from
Geoffrey. But
I suppose that if and when more Cudworth ancestors are revealed,
there will
be more descents.
Merilyn
2nd Descent
4. Blanche of Castile, b. 1187
5. Louis IX, King of France, b. 1215
6. Philip III, King of France, b. 1245
7. Marguerite of France, b. 1279
8. Thomas of Brotherton, d. 1338
9. Margaret of Brotherton, b. 1320
10. Elizabeth de Segrave, b. 1338
11. Eleanor Mowbray, b. 1364
12. Eudo de Welles, b. 1421
13. Eleanor Welles etc. (see #15,1st Descent, above)
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message