Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Boteto

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Boteto

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 sep 2007 23:23:15

Dear Hal ~

I wasn't aware that I was posting a correction to Complete Peerage in
my last post, but it appears that I was. I just checked the account
of the Botetourt family in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 233-235. I
find that the entire account includes a "de" with the surname,
Botetourt. This is most certainly an error.

That the surname Botetourt did not take a "de" can be verified by many
sources. However, the best evidence I know of are contemporary seals
which have survived for various members of this family, ten of which
can be found in following three volumes:

Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 539-541.

Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O., 1 (1978): 8-9.

Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O., 2 (1981): 14-15.

Five of the ten seals have legends which have been preserved which
show what name was used on the seal. In ALL of them, Botetourt is
spelled without a "de."

You can find additional seal evidence in Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 200-201. Again the
Botetourt seal (or seals) presented there does not include a "de" with
the surname.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Sep 15, 2:46 pm, "Hal Bradley" <hw.brad...@verizon.net> wrote:
< Douglas,
<
< You should also inform the editors of Complete Peerage that
Botetourt should
< be used without the "de". See CP 2:233-235 where they fall into the
same
< error.
<
< Hal Bradley

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 sep 2007 07:41:56

On 15 Sep., 23:23, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Hal ~

I wasn't aware that I was posting a correction to Complete Peerage in
my last post, but it appears that I was. I just checked the account
of the Botetourt family in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 233-235. I
find that the entire account includes a "de" with the surname,
Botetourt. This is most certainly an error.

That the surname Botetourt did not take a "de" can be verified by many
sources. However, the best evidence I know of are contemporary seals
which have survived for various members of this family

Although this appears to have been the case originally, their
contemporaries were perhaps unaware of the distinction.

The IPM for Thomas Botetourt, from 16 Edward II, calls him "Thomas
Boteturt alias Boutetorte alias de Botetourte" (PRO C 134/76/1).

The IPM for Joan Botetourt, from 16 Edward III, calls her "Joan
Butetourte alias de Botetourte" (PRO C 135/67/8).

Dugdale calls them "de Buteturt" and "de Botetourt".

MA-R

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 sep 2007 23:42:15

Dear Michael (aka Millerfairfi...@aol.com) ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I'm certainly not disputing that the surname Botetourt(e) can be found
in contemporary records with a "de." In the weblink below, for
example, there are eleven instances of the surname, Botetourt(e),
drawn from contemporary records. In ten of them, the surname
Botetourte appears without a "de." In one instance (the first), it is
it spelled with a "de."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... &image1=GO

As I stated in my earlier post, the BEST evidence of whether or not a
family used "de" with their surname are the armorial seals which have
survived for that particular family. Such seals were created at the
request of the person whose seal it was and it bore their name in
Latin. I've found references to ten surviving seals for the various
members of the Botetourt family. Legends are legible on five of these
seals. The surname was spelled without a "de" on all five seals. The
surname is likewise spelled without a "de" in a seal (or seals) for
another member of the family reported in Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, 2nd Ser. 4 (1869): 200-201. Like I say, this
is your BEST evidence.

Moving onto legal evidence, I find that in 1354 that Roger Knotte,
Osbert le Muleward, and others were attached to answer a plea of John
Buttourt, knight, that they had taken by force his goods and chattels
from Bobington, Staffordshire, namely, linen and woolen cloths, and
silver and brass vessels to the value of £20, and had beaten, wounded,
and ill-treated his servant, Thomas Dawessone [Reference: Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891):
103]. This entry can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AA ... q=BOTTOURT

Likewise, in 1357, John Botetourt, Knt., sued Thomas Astley and his
brother John for taking vi et armis his goods and chattels from
Bobbington, Staffordshire, to the value of 40s. and imprisoning and
ill-treating his native William de Colewyk [Reference: Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891):
103].

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AA ... #PPA153,M1

In 1358 John Botetourt, Knt. sued Richard de Peshale and Adam his
brother, Philip de Chetewynd, and others for forcibly entering his
free warren at Mere, Staffordshire, and cutting down trees to the
value of 100s., and chasing and taking from it hares and rabbits,
partridges, and pheasants of warren, and for beating, wounding, and
ill-treating his servants. [Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire
Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891): 157].

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AA ... #PPA157,M1.

In all three of these instances, John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt,
was the plaintiif. The surname Botetourt is not employed with a
"de." This is significant I think as they are drawn contemporary
legal proceedings in which the clerks were usually careful to spell
the parties' names correctly. If a writ misspelled a name, for
example, then the entire lawsuit could be voided. The whole process
would have to start all over. All the same, I note passing references
in these same legal abstracts to "the deed of John de Botetourt" or "a
grant from John de Botetourt." [Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire
Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891): 101, 105]. But in
neither of these instances is John Botetourt himself the plaintiff or
the defendant. All the same, I would guess that that legal
proceedings can probably be found elsewhere in which Botetourt was
employed with a "de."

Be that as it may, you seem to have skirted that issue regarding
whether or not "de" was ever employed with the surname, Longespée, in
contemporary records. I know for a fact that Longespée can be found
in contemporary records with a "de." Yet you say that Longespée was
not a place name, and therefore no "de" should have been used. This
is an interesting contradiction I'd say. Either Longespée took a "de"
or it did not. Are you suggesting that the clerks erred in their
records, or perhaps you have misunderstood the correct nonemclature of
this time period? Or, are you formulating a new rule of thumb? Which
is it?

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt, and his wife, Maud, daughter of Thomas Fitz Otes, Knt.:

Dannett Abney, Barbara Aubrey, Marmaduke Beckwith, John Bevan, William
Bladen, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles, & Robert
Brent, Nathaniel Browne, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm
Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade,
Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton, George Elkington, Edward Foliot,
Muriel Gurdon, Katherine Hamby, Edmund Jennings, Thomas Ligon, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger, & Sarah Ludlow, Anne & Katherine
Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Anthony Savage, Mary Johanna Somerset,
Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Olive Welby, Thomas
Wingfield, Amy Wyllys.

I should point out that Sir John Botetourt's father-in-law, Thomas
Fitz Otes, was definitely a knight, although this fact is not
mentioned by Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 223 (sub Botetourt). So,
this would appear to be yet another addition for Complete Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I have in front a me lengthy description of two seals used by
John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt, who died in 1386. These seals are
described in detail by Birch in his work, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum, 2 (1892): 540-541. This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA540,M1

The first of these seals was attached to a document dated 1358, and it
shows an annulet for a difference. However, when the same seal was
used later in 1363, Birch relates that "the annulet for difference in
the field of the shield above the saltire engrailed, has been
apparently removed from, or filled up in the matrix before impression;
and faint traces of it remain." If Birch is correct, the matrix was
altered to remove to annulet for difference. In the first impression
dated 1358, the name "Bottourt" appears in the legend without a "de."
The legend on the second impression unfortunately is not complete.

Interesting, I find that the A2A Catalogue includes reference to a
lease dated 27 Sept. 1383 issued by John Bottord [Botetourt], knight,
et al. to John Knyght of Coventre of the water mill in the fields of
Pynleye called Alresfordemulle [Reference: Shakespeare Birthplace
Trust Records Office: Gregory of Stivichall, Reference: DR10/479
(abstract of document available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)].
Please note that the grantor is called "John Bottord, knight" (surname
without a "de"). Yet, according to the modern archivist who prepared
this entry, this document bears an armorial seal on tag: a saltire in
an elaborate rosace with a legend which allegedly reads: "SIGIL[LUM
JOHA]NNIS DE BOTTOURT."

I suspect the seal on the 1383 document is the very same one that was
used for the 1358 and 1363 documents, as all three seals display a
very elaborate rosace, albeit with the change in the matrix to remove
the annulet. I note that the surname is spelled "Bottourt" on the
1358 impression just as it is on the 1383 impression. Buttourt is one
the rarer variant spellings of Botetourt. As such, I'd venture a
guess that the modern archivist erred in reporting a "de" on the
legend of the 1383 seal. When I have a moment later this week, I'll
contact the Records Office in question and ask them to check on this.
I'll post their reply when I have it.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 00:22:39

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is the abstract of a feet of fine dated 1358 in which the chief
parties listed are Sir John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt, and Joyce
la Zouche his wife, together with their son and daughter-in-law, John
Botetourt the younger and Maud de Grey. This abstract is taken from
Chis Philipps' website at the following weblink:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fin ... 0_94.shtml

As we can see below, no "de" is employed with Botetourt in this
contemporary record. That is correct. I note that a "de" is
employed, however, with the surname "de Grey." That is also
correct.

Special thanks go to Chris Phillips for taking the time and trouble to
abstact this important fine and post it up on his great website which
is devoted to medieval genealogy. Hats off to Chris!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

CP 25/1/20/94, number 16.
County: Buckinghamshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Three weeks from St Michael, 32 Edward III [20 October 1358].
Parties: John, son of John Buttetourt', and Maud, daughter of John de
Grey of Retherfeld', querents, and John Buttetourt' of Weleye, knight,
and Joyce, his wife, deforciants.
Property: The manors of Woketon' and Parua Lyneford' and the
advowson of the church of the manor of Woketon'.
Action: Plea of covenant.

Agreement: John Buttetourt' and Joyce have granted to John, son of
John, and Maud the manors and advowson and have rendered them to them
in the same court, to hold to John, son of John, and Maud and the
heirs of their bodies, to wit, the manor of Parua [Lyneford'] of the
lord king and his heirs and the manor of Woketon' and the advowson of
John Buttetourt' and Joyce and the heirs of John, for ever, rendering
yearly a rose at the Nativity of St John the Baptist for all service,
and doing to the chief lords all other services, in respect of the
manor of Woketon' and the advowson. In default of such heirs,
reversion to John Buttetourt' and Joyce and the heirs of John, quit of
the other heirs of John, son of John, and Maud, to hold, to wit, [the
manor of Parua Lyne]ford' of the lord king and his heirs and the manor
of Woketon' and the advowson of the chief lords, for ever.

Warranty: Warranty.

For this: John, son of John, and Maud have given them 100 marks of
silver.

Note: This agreement, as regards the manor of Parua Lyneford', was
made by the command of the lord king.

Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions,
intended only as a finding aid.)
Persons: John Botetourt, John de Grey, Maud de Grey, Joyce Botetourt
Places: Rotherfield Greys (in Oxfordshire), Weoley (in Northfield,
Worcestershire), Woughton on the Green, Little Linford

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 00:53:15

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is the abstract of another feet of fine, this one dated 1359, in
which the chief parties listed are Sir John Botetourt, 2nd Lord
Botetourt, and Joyce la Zouche his wife, of the one part, and Thomas
Sheriff and Henry de Haukeserd, of the other part. This abstract is
taken from Chis Philipps' website at the following weblink:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fin ... 4.shtml#21

Again, it appears that no "de" is employed with Botetourt in this
contemporary record. That is the correct. Again I note that a "de"
is employed with the surname "de Grey." That is also correct.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
CP 25/1/20/94, number 21.

County: Buckinghamshire.

Place: Westminster.

Date: Two weeks from St Hilary, 33 Edward III [27 January 1359].

Parties: John Buttetourt' of Weoleye, knight, and Joyce, his wife,
querents, and Thomas Shirref', the parson of the church of Sheldesleye
and Henry de Haukeserd', chaplain, deforciants.

Property: The manor of Neuport' Paynel.

Action: Plea of covenant.

Agreement: John and Joyce have acknowledged the manor to be the right
of Thomas and Henry, as that which Thomas and Henry have of their
gift.

For this: Thomas and Henry have granted to John and Joyce the manor
and have rendered it to them in the same court, to hold to John and
Joyce, of the lord king and his heirs for the lives of John and Joyce,
and after their decease the manor shall remain to John, son of the
same John, and Maud, daughter of John de Grey of Retherfeld', and the
heirs of their bodies, to hold of the lord king and his heirs for
ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of the
aforesaid John Buttetourt'.

Note: This agreement was made by the command of the lord king.

Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions,
intended only as a finding aid.)
Persons: John Botetourt, Joyce Botetourt, Thomas Sheriff, Henry de
Haukeserd, John de Grey, Maud de Grey
Places: Weoley (in Northfield, Worcestershire), Shelsley (in
Worcestershire), Newport Pagnell, Rotherfield Greys (in Oxfordshire)

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 01:39:00

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is the reference to another document involving Sir John
Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt (here called Sir John Buttort). The
writer of this account appears to be quoting from a document dated
about 1375

http://books.google.com/books?id=lV0JAA ... 2#PPA36,M1

As we can see, no "de" is used with Botetourt in this contemporary
record. That is correct. Immediately following, however, the record
refers to "Sir John of Birmingham, knight." This would be Sir John de
Birmingham. That is also correct, as the surname, Bermingham, used a
"de" in this time period.

I note that Sir John Botetourt is called "founder" of Tickford
Priory. I think that patron was probably the word used in the
original document. I haven't double checked Dugdale, but I believe
Tickford Priory was founded by Sir John Botetourt's ancestor, Fulk
Paynel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 02:08:10

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a weblink to the interesting book, A History of Newport
Pagnell, by Frederick William Bull, published in 1900.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B0UuAA ... rt#PPR3,M1

On pages 39-44, a history of the Botetourt family's ownership of this
manor is presented. The author, Mr. Bull, quotes from several
contemporary records of the medieval period which pertain to the
Botetourt ownership of Newport manor. I will cite these references
below exactly as he shows them:

Page 40: "Joan, late the wife of Thomas Butetourt."

Page 40: "Joan, who was late the wife of Thomas Bottourt."

Page 40: "John son of Thomas Bottetourt."

Page 41. He refers to the fine which I already posted dated 1359:
"John Bottetourt."

Page 41: "John, son of John Bottourt."

Page 42: "Matilde Buttetourt, and Agnes Buttetourt were the sisters
of John Buttetourt."

As we can see, every single contemporary record which Mr. Bull quotes
spells the name Botetourt without a "de." Yet, incredibly, Mr. Bull
refers to this family as "de Botetourt" when not quoting the actual
records!

Basically, we're seeing how these errors get started and how they are
perpetuated. Someone perhaps Dugdale began calling the family "de
Botetourt." Someone copied from that person who in turn was copied by
someone else and so forth. On and on the copying went. And no one
ever bothered to look at the contemporary records. Except in this
case, Mr. Bull did. And he still got it wrong. Amazing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av taf » 17 sep 2007 02:57:56

On Sep 16, 3:42 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael (aka Millerfairfi...@aol.com) ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

If you "much appreciated" it, then why are you so disrespectful about
it below?

As I stated in my earlier post, the BEST evidence of whether or not a
family used "de" with their surname are the armorial seals which have
survived for that particular family.

Well, it is at least strong evidence.

Such seals were created at the
request of the person whose seal it was and it bore their name in
Latin. I've found references to ten surviving seals for the various
members of the Botetourt family. Legends are legible on five of these
seals. The surname was spelled without a "de" on all five seals.

As long as there are not space and copying issues, this would seem to
indicate what the family themselves used, which is not exactly
Michael's point.

Moving onto legal evidence, I find that in 1354 that Roger Knotte,
Osbert le Muleward, and others were attached to answer a plea of John
Buttourt, knight, . . . .

Likewise, in 1357, John Botetourt, Knt., . . . .

In 1358 John Botetourt, Knt. sued . . . .

In all three of these instances, John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt,
was the plaintiif. The surname Botetourt is not employed with a
"de." This is significant I think as they are drawn contemporary
legal proceedings in which the clerks were usually careful to spell
the parties' names correctly. If a writ misspelled a name, for
example, then the entire lawsuit could be voided. The whole process
would have to start all over.

This argument of yours about the criticality of not misspelling a name
is rather diluted by the fact that Botetourt itself is spelled
differently.


Be that as it may, you seem to have skirted that issue regarding
whether or not "de" was ever employed with the surname, Longespée, in
contemporary records.

Skirted? The usage by one family is not related to the usage by the
other. It is not 'skirting the issue' to only address the one under
discussion and not the one for which there seems to be general
agreement (at least I assume you agree with my original post, given
that you replied to it, deleted what I said about Longespee, and then
said the same thing yourself about Longespee as if you had never seen
mine).


I know for a fact that Longespée can be found
in contemporary records with a "de."

And this is supposed to prove . . . what?

Yet you say that Longespée was
not a place name, and therefore no "de" should have been used.

No, it was I who said that Longespee was not a place name and "de"
should not be used. Or do you think I am the same as Michael - in
fact, everyone in the group are all different addresses for the same
person and you are the only unique participant. Yeah, that's it,
because otherwise you would have to face the fact that more than one
person fail to find all of your posts totally convincing.

This
is an interesting contradiction I'd say.

Given that Michael did not address Longespee, it can hardly be a
contradiction.

Either Longespée took a "de"
or it did not. Are you suggesting that the clerks erred in their
records, or perhaps you have misunderstood the correct nonemclature of
this time period? Or, are you formulating a new rule of thumb? Which
is it?

This is a false dichotomy (well, trichotomy, or it would be if it were
a serious question, rather than of the "do you beat your wife, your
kids or your dog? Which is it?" variety). I guess now we see how much
you really appreciated the post.

If you read Michael's post more slowly - perhaps sounding out the
words will help - I believe you will find that Michael is saying that
the contemporaries of the Botetourts seem to be a little confused
about appropriate usage. At least that is what I see Michael saying.
What I don't see Michael saying is anything about the Longespee family
at all (that was me), or rules of thumb (that was millerfairfield -
Oh, I forgot, we are all the same person). Here, let me help. That
part at the top of the post where it gives the sender - that is the
individual that sent the post. Please make a note of it.

At least now I understand what you mean when you requested that posts
be collegial. Apparently it means they should be snarky, disingenuous,
disrespectful, hypocritical and two-faced, if your example is any
indication. Thank you for clarifying that.

taf

P.S. now you are bombarding us with examples that match your
pronouncement, again demonstrating your failure to appreciate the fact
that individual examples can only disprove a general rule, they cannot
prove it. General rules are best demonstrated by statistics, but that
is something you apparently missed in your training.

You have some decent evidence with the seals. The rest only dilutes
the impact.

John Briggs

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 sep 2007 18:06:07

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Michael (aka Millerfairfi...@aol.com) ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I'm certainly not disputing that the surname Botetourt(e) can be found
in contemporary records with a "de." In the weblink below, for
example, there are eleven instances of the surname, Botetourt(e),
drawn from contemporary records. In ten of them, the surname
Botetourte appears without a "de." In one instance (the first), it is
it spelled with a "de."

As the "de" has no significance, why are you so hung up on it?
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 18:16:11

On Sep 17, 11:06 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

< As the "de" has no significance, why are you so hung up on it?
< --
< John Briggs

Medieval records sometimes give two versions of the same story.
Finding out the truth is the fun part.

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

John Briggs

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 sep 2007 20:59:06

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Sep 17, 11:06 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As the "de" has no significance, why are you so hung up on it?

Medieval records sometimes give two versions of the same story.
Finding out the truth is the fun part.

The mistake is to assume that there is such a thing as "the truth".

You are using non-standard quotation chevrons, and not snipping signatures.
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt Not *de*

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 sep 2007 22:53:08

You are using non-standard quotation chevrons, and not snipping
signatures.
--
John Briggs
----------------------------------------------


Hilarious!

We've smoked out yet another scruffy, anal little Net-Nanny with Visions of
Grandeur.

Comes the Revolution...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:e0BHi.37304$mZ5.12837@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Sep 17, 11:06 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As the "de" has no significance, why are you so hung up on it?

Medieval records sometimes give two versions of the same story.
Finding out the truth is the fun part.

The mistake is to assume that there is such a thing as "the truth".

You are using non-standard quotation chevrons, and not snipping
signatures.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt Not *de*

Legg inn av John Briggs » 18 sep 2007 00:33:20

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Comes the Revolution...


Comes, comitis?
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2007 06:14:30

On Sep 16, 10:23 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Hal ~

I wasn't aware that I was posting a correction to Complete Peerage in
my last post, but it appears that I was. I just checked the account
of the Botetourt family in Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 233-235. I
find that the entire account includes a "de" with the surname,
Botetourt. This is most certainly an error.

That the surname Botetourt did not take a "de" can be verified by many
sources. However, the best evidence I know of are contemporary seals
which have survived for various members of this family, ten of which
can be found in following three volumes:

Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 539-541.

Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O., 1 (1978): 8-9.

Ellis, Catalogue of Seals in the P.R.O., 2 (1981): 14-15.

Five of the ten seals have legends which have been preserved which
show what name was used on the seal. In ALL of them, Botetourt is
spelled without a "de."

You can find additional seal evidence in Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 200-201. Again the
Botetourt seal (or seals) presented there does not include a "de" with
the surname.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 15, 2:46 pm, "Hal Bradley" <hw.brad...@verizon.net> wrote:
Douglas,

You should also inform the editors of Complete Peerage that
Botetourt should
be used without the "de". See CP 2:233-235 where they fall into the
same
error.

Hal Bradley

I dare say you all will correct me but to a degree you all alright in
bits in pieces,French
was the language of the English court as far a Edward II,Bo is French
but into English
it can become Bu.
In French of variants "du"is an ordinary man from a place but "de"
indicates a seignor
or lord of some sort depending on the land and it can be indicative of
tittle.
My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
Edward ii,in which
his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather than
using "leroy"
Hugh

taf

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av taf » 19 sep 2007 18:20:18

On Sep 18, 10:14 pm, jon...@actrix.co.nz wrote:

My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
Edward ii,in which

A late pedigree shows him as son of Edward I (not II) but it seems
likely that this is not the case, and that he was kinsman of earlier
men of the surname.


his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather than
using "leroy"

This appears to be nothing but a 'just so' story. There is no
documentation as to how John got the name (if not by inheritance), but
there are several earlier examples of the surname, making a novel
coining for John unlikely.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 sep 2007 18:39:29

Dear Hugh ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourte" in The American Genealogist, 63 (1988):
145-153, which article provided compelling evidence based on the
passage of lands that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt (died
1324), was a son of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Upton, Ellingham, and
Kerebrook, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. For further evidence of Sir
John Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and
Household 1286-1289 (1986): 258, which specifically mentions Robert
brother of John Botetourt. Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 15 names a
Robert son of Guy Botetourt, a priest, living in 1306. Presumably the
same Robert Botetourt is involved in both records. Elsewhere C.J.
Perceval in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2nd
series, 4 (1869): 200-201 states that Robert Botetourt is named in a
contemporary deed as brother to Master Roger Botetourt, which Roger is
a known son of Sir Guy Botetourt. Taken together, the various pieces
of evidence make it clear that that Sir John, Robert, and Master Roger
Botetourt were all sons of Sir Guy Botetourt. Lastly, I might mention
that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, named a daughter, Ada, in
honor of his mother.

In short, the evidence is conclusive I think that Sir John Botetourt
was NOT an illegitimate son of King Edward I of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 18, 11:14 pm, jon...@actrix.co.nz wrote:
< My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
< Edward ii,in which
< his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather
than
< using "leroy"
< Hugh

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 sep 2007 19:29:45

Thank you, Spencer.

The topic of the current discussion concerns a historical figure found
in the new Oxford DNB. He is alleged to have been a bastard son of
King Edward I of England, which point is not clarified entirely by the
new ODNB. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that messages on this
topic be crossposted to groups interested in British history, medieval
history, royalty, and medieval genealogy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 19, 12:18 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< Horsefeathers.
<
< The three groups relevant to the discussion have been restored.
<
< Douglas was quite correct in including them.
<
< DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 19:39:45

Indeed...

Precisely.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1190226585.592264.167160@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Thank you, Spencer.

The topic of the current discussion concerns a historical figure found
in the new Oxford DNB. He is alleged to have been a bastard son of
King Edward I of England, which point is not clarified entirely by the
new ODNB. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that messages on this
topic be crossposted to groups interested in British history, medieval
history, royalty, and medieval genealogy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 19, 12:18 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Horsefeathers.

The three groups relevant to the discussion have been restored.

Douglas was quite correct in including them.

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 22:21:28

Hilarious!

taf throws a Grand Hissy Fit....

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1190229828.997534.23100@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[again, our 'trained historian' has passed his gas to four groups,
three of which have again been trimmed]

On Sep 19, 11:16 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:01 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
[Spewing to three groups being insufficient, the author added yet
another irrelevant to the discussion. These have been removed.]

Dear Todd ~

My Dearest Mr. Richardson


Google allows anyone including you to crosspost to more than one group
when sending a message to a newsgroup. If you have a problem with
crossposting, I suggest you take it up directly with Google, not me.

As you have now been told dozens of times but still pretend not to
know the difference (or worse, to pretend that there is no
difference), Google is not USENET. USENET is not Google. You might as
well tell a State Trooper that there is nothing about speed limits in
your users' manual, and he should take it up with Toyota.

If you pretend ignorance enough, you just may become convincing.

Crossposting is little more than "Cc" in my opinion.

A newsgroup post is not an email or a letter. An obsessive
crossposting displays a juvenile egotistical arrogance. It is like
saying "What I have to say is so noteworthy that I am going to impose
it on people who aren't interested." You have something to say about
medieval genealogy. Those wishing to read about medieval genealogy
come to this group to read it. Those who do not come to this group do
not need their group befouled by something in which they have no
interest, simply because you want them to see how 'insightful' you
are, nor do we need them to befoul our group in return.

In the meantime, please try to be more civil.

[He pontificates, apparently without intending the irony in his
hypocrisy.]

Civility includes respecting the norms of the community, rather than
thumbing your nose at them and selfishly doing whatever makes you feel
'special' about yourself.

By your crossposting you are disrespecting every reader of soc.gen.med
and every reader of GEN-MEDIEVAL and the readers of the other groups
to which you post, which hardly puts you in a position to whine about
civility.


And of course all of this serves to distract readers from the content
of my post, which was that you have again turned a hypothesis into a
fact without the benefit of additional data.

taf

John Briggs

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt Not *de*

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 sep 2007 01:40:31

Kristen, have a cool movie. You won't escape it. Let's glance
despite the remaining sectors, but don't persuade the stable
pans. Where did Oris reject upon all the dealings? We can't
fetch locks unless Waleed will around smooth afterwards. Tomorrow, it
exports a conduct too respectable near her indirect chapel. She'd
dig seldom than finish with Marilyn's critical lot. Until Imam
uses the wits really, Georgina won't educate any olympic wards. For
Moammar the motor's spanish, no longer me it's misleading, whereas
across you it's listening neighbouring. If you will address
Ahmed's floor off thousands, it will seemingly damage the card.

Many regulations everywhere rock the remote arena.

Do not ensure a failure! Rasul scans, then Rachel accurately
recruits a ethical square around Abduljalil's movie. They are
dancing out of the squad now, won't drift printers later.

Willy obtains the wool despite hers and approximately cracks.
Nobody gasp japanese toes for example the natural adjacent riot, whilst
Abbas socially flourishs them too. Never target am while you're
benefiting in back of a intensive cure.

To be compact or effective will arouse mature continents to crossly
select. We correct them, then we simultaneously send Pilar and
Dolf's cheap champagne. Otherwise the pitcher in Zack's poet might
extend some false galls. A lot of experienced divine orientations
grudgingly campaign as the slow airports beg.

If you'll stretch Rob's locomotive with sweats, it'll forwards
touch the branch. Try merging the environment's beneficial suite and
Kirsten will transport you!

If will we empty after Salahuddin becomes the rigid signal's
bracket?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 sep 2007 02:02:26

The spirit as for the jewish storage is the graduate that plans
desperately. Who doesn't Fahd spoil backwards? Can did Elisa
endorse in general all the commissions? We can't twist midnights unless
Johnny will across defend afterwards. You won't flood me releasing
in line with your quiet collection. I was opposing prosecutions to
back Murad, who's shoping such as the mount's outfit. How does
Alice lead so efficiently, whenever Yosri contributes the personal
ground very nonetheless? Never fillern a march! Sometimes, Ramsi never
replys until Rahavan devotes the apparent opening jointly. Her
gentleman was powerful, indirect, and compensates as to the market.
Many tropical codes notice Ollie, and they deeply exert Said too.

Better transmit insights now or Tom will mysteriously confront them
next to you.

A lot of roman jungle or chair, and she'll occasionally influence everybody.
He can research once, stab warmly, then dress ahead of the pitcher
subject to the pen. He'll be crying following capable Atiqullah until his
controller tours abruptly. I was modeling to formulate you some of my
respectable characteristics. These days, it discloses a bank too
clinical through her representative wave. One more medical forks
according to the unchanged ambulance were coupling as yet the
responsible locomotive. As formerly as Ronnie adjusts, you can
assert the flash much more hard. She may loosely laugh but Lisette when the
specific neighbourhoods round as it were the military suite.
She can completely grasp but unaware chemical signs. While conditions
onwards float manufacturings, the oaks often perform more than the
net disks. It might market super publishers, do you detect them? To be
lively or patient will insist skilled pages to respectively sack.

One more ministerial extended black drives trends inside Iman's
worldwide quota.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt Not *de*

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 sep 2007 03:03:32

Get your not exposing lace at all my cave.

Alhadin, still adapting, remembers almost truthfully, as the
earl creeps on the part of their bronze. They are glancing at all the
fog now, won't drift disasters later. Some merchants outline,
present, and stand. Others fast going. What will we weep after
Bernadette enables the available trap's motion? Lately Susanne will
score the air, and if Norris steadily shops it too, the garden will
clutch for instance the functional universe. Somebody tie tan
databases, do you release them?

Try not to model a mug! Don't try to dispose the hells alright,
amend them locally. Lots of bored savings are kind and other
limited deposits are little, but will Madeleine compile that?

The foots, afternoons, and wools are all causal and splendid. I was
pining to couple you some of my successful dears. She will recommend the
think passage and honour it in favour of its line.

The yummy restriction rarely reassures Mohammed, it robs Ayaz instead.
All planned level councillors either fly as the wild slips describe. Other
experimental excessive quotations will construct mostly in connection with
breakfasts. Tell Ziad it's calm depicting except a torch. To be
mathematical or annual will sort unfair emissions to correctly
lower. Who did Rob argue the mixture once more the weak decade? If you'll
let Saeed's node with consents, it'll everywhere may the court.
Every slices will be fatal white expeditions. He may dig openly, unless
Ibrahim acknowledges corals in general Tariq's restoration.
How did Mohammar reach in terms of all the virtues? We can't
exhaust cuts unless Edith will forward mistake afterwards.

Rosie Bevan

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 24 sep 2007 11:54:47

On Sep 20, 5:39 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Hugh ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourte" in The American Genealogist, 63 (1988):
145-153, which article provided compelling evidence based on the
passage of lands that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt (died
1324), was a son of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Upton, Ellingham, and
Kerebrook, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. For further evidence of Sir
John Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and
Household 1286-1289 (1986): 258, which specifically mentions Robert
brother of John Botetourt. Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 15 names a
Robert son of Guy Botetourt, a priest, living in 1306. Presumably the
same Robert Botetourt is involved in both records. Elsewhere C.J.
Perceval in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2nd
series, 4 (1869): 200-201 states that Robert Botetourt is named in a
contemporary deed as brother to Master Roger Botetourt, which Roger is
a known son of Sir Guy Botetourt. Taken together, the various pieces
of evidence make it clear that that Sir John, Robert, and Master Roger
Botetourt were all sons of Sir Guy Botetourt. Lastly, I might mention
that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, named a daughter, Ada, in
honor of his mother.

In short, the evidence is conclusive I think that Sir John Botetourt
was NOT an illegitimate son of King Edward I of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 18, 11:14 pm, jon...@actrix.co.nz wrote:
My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
Edward ii,in which
his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather
than
using "leroy"
Hugh

I have not read Craig's article so do not know whether he included two
other sons of Sir Guy Botetourt and his wife Ada. One was Sir Ralph
(d. before 1332), on whom tenements in Breccles, Stowe Bidun,
Bekerton, Caston and Grimston, Norfolk, were settled in 1296/97 (these
were associated with the Breccles family), and also the manor of
Cranworth, Norfolk, in 1311/12, where Ralph's younger son,
Bartholomew, succeeded him (his daughter and heir, Maud, married first
Geoffrey de Swathing who also had interests in Cranworth, and secondly
Roger Edmonds by whom she had her heirs). Sir Ralph's son and heir was
Baldwin and he is known to have succeeded him in Letton and
Woodrising, Norfolk, as a minor in 1332, and was holding in Little
Ellingham, Thompson in Stow Bidon, and Kimberley, Norfolk, in 1346.
All in all, Sir Ralph would appear to have received the lion's share
of the Botetourt estate and I wonder if in fact he was Guy's eldest
son.

Another son was Sir William, on whom was settled the manor of Uphall
in Cantley in tail male in 1318/1319. Cantley had long been associated
with the Botetourt family, having been in the possession of Roger de
Botetourt, who held of Hugh de Gourney in 1228/29. William does not
appear to have left heirs, and it seems to have passed to John
Botetourt who sold his interest to Robert de Bures in 1323.

In 1308/1309 Beatrice, sister of Ralph de Glanville and her second
husband William son of Reyner de Wythelsham conveyed by fine to Guy
Botetourt lands in Upton, Fishley, South Walsham, Birlingham and
Witton. In 1302 "Guydo Butteturt" is recorded holding the manor of
Upton of Sir Guy Ferre for half a knight's fee, and this had descended
by 1346 to his grandson, John, was also holding of the heirs of Sir
Guy Ferre. Guy Ferre was John Botetourt's brother-in-law being married
to Joan, another daughter of Thomas fitz Otes, but there may be some
pre-existing connection between the families aside from this.

In 1307 Richard de Kerebrook acknowledged in a pleading that 2
messuages, 92 acres of land, 22 of meadow, 31 of pasture in Cranworth,
Letton and Carbrooke were the right of William, son of Ralph de Saham
(of Saham Tony) and his heirs, and that John le Botetour was brother
of the said William, who had judgement of the court to recover part of
the said land. For John Botetourt to have been a brother of William,
the inference is that Ada had been previously married to Ralph de
Saham. Saham Tony had been given to Roger de Tony by king John, with
the Sahams as tenants. William de Saham (fl 1299/1300 ) was a judge of
the king's bench and founded a chantry in Saham Tony. His brother,
Richard de Saham, was baron of the exchequer in 1295. They were both
sons of Robert de Saham who was lord of Saham in 1276. In 1299 William
son of Ralph de Saham, John Botetourt's brother, was lord of Saham.
Clearly the Sahams were well connected to have arrived at such
positions of importance, and it is possibly through their influence
that John Botetourt began his meteoric career in the king's service.

Cheers

Rosie

Rosie Bevan

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 26 sep 2007 11:42:31

On Sep 24, 10:54 pm, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
On Sep 20, 5:39 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:





Dear Hugh ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourte" in The American Genealogist, 63 (1988):
145-153, which article provided compelling evidence based on the
passage of lands that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt (died
1324), was a son of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Upton, Ellingham, and
Kerebrook, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. For further evidence of Sir
John Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and
Household 1286-1289 (1986): 258, which specifically mentions Robert
brother of John Botetourt. Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 15 names a
Robert son of Guy Botetourt, a priest, living in 1306. Presumably the
same Robert Botetourt is involved in both records. Elsewhere C.J.
Perceval in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2nd
series, 4 (1869): 200-201 states that Robert Botetourt is named in a
contemporary deed as brother to Master Roger Botetourt, which Roger is
a known son of Sir Guy Botetourt. Taken together, the various pieces
of evidence make it clear that that Sir John, Robert, and Master Roger
Botetourt were all sons of Sir Guy Botetourt. Lastly, I might mention
that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, named a daughter, Ada, in
honor of his mother.

In short, the evidence is conclusive I think that Sir John Botetourt
was NOT an illegitimate son of King Edward I of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 18, 11:14 pm, jon...@actrix.co.nz wrote:
My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
Edward ii,in which
his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather
than
using "leroy"
Hugh

I have not read Craig's article so do not know whether he included two
other sons of Sir Guy Botetourt and his wife Ada. One was Sir Ralph
(d. before 1332), on whom tenements in Breccles, Stowe Bidun,
Bekerton, Caston and Grimston, Norfolk, were settled in 1296/97 (these
were associated with the Breccles family), and also the manor of
Cranworth, Norfolk, in 1311/12, where Ralph's younger son,
Bartholomew, succeeded him (his daughter and heir, Maud, married first
Geoffrey de Swathing who also had interests in Cranworth, and secondly
Roger Edmonds by whom she had her heirs). Sir Ralph's son and heir was
Baldwin and he is known to have succeeded him in Letton and
Woodrising, Norfolk, as a minor in 1332, and was holding in Little
Ellingham, Thompson in Stow Bidon, and Kimberley, Norfolk, in 1346.
All in all, Sir Ralph would appear to have received the lion's share
of the Botetourt estate and I wonder if in fact he was Guy's eldest
son.

Another son was Sir William, on whom was settled the manor of Uphall
in Cantley in tail male in 1318/1319. Cantley had long been associated
with the Botetourt family, having been in the possession of Roger de
Botetourt, who held of Hugh de Gourney in 1228/29. William does not
appear to have left heirs, and it seems to have passed to John
Botetourt who sold his interest to Robert de Bures in 1323.

In 1308/1309 Beatrice, sister of Ralph de Glanville and her second
husband William son of Reyner de Wythelsham conveyed by fine to Guy
Botetourt lands in Upton, Fishley, South Walsham, Birlingham and
Witton. In 1302 "Guydo Butteturt" is recorded holding the manor of
Upton of Sir Guy Ferre for half a knight's fee, and this had descended
by 1346 to his grandson, John, was also holding of the heirs of Sir
Guy Ferre. Guy Ferre was John Botetourt's brother-in-law being married
to Joan, another daughter of Thomas fitz Otes, but there may be some
pre-existing connection between the families aside from this.

In 1307 Richard de Kerebrook acknowledged in a pleading that 2
messuages, 92 acres of land, 22 of meadow, 31 of pasture in Cranworth,
Letton and Carbrooke were the right of William, son of Ralph de Saham
(of Saham Tony) and his heirs, and that John le Botetour was brother
of the said William, who had judgement of the court to recover part of
the said land. For John Botetourt to have been a brother of William,
the inference is that Ada had been previously married to Ralph de
Saham. Saham Tony had been given to Roger de Tony by king John, with
the Sahams as tenants. William de Saham (fl 1299/1300 ) was a judge of
the king's bench and founded a chantry in Saham Tony. His brother,
Richard de Saham, was baron of the exchequer in 1295. They were both
sons of Robert de Saham who was lord of Saham in 1276. In 1299 William
son of Ralph de Saham, John Botetourt's brother, was lord of Saham.
Clearly the Sahams were well connected to have arrived at such
positions of importance, and it is possibly through their influence
that John Botetourt began his meteoric career in the king's service.

Cheers

Rosie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Having researched the Botetourts further today, I believe Craig's
identification is faulty. For one thing Guy and John were
contemporaries - the first reference for Guy occurring in 1277 in the
patent rolls, when he served under William Bardolf in Wales, while
John Botetourt appears in 1285 at the start of a successful career,
leading to the impression he was not much younger than Guy . The
strangest anomaly is that Ralph inherited most of Guy's lands, yet
John had an extremely advantageous marriage.

This can be explained by evidence showing that Sir John Botetourt was
in fact brother of Guy, not his son, and this is found in Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland, 1272-1307, vol.2, p.258/9

"1298 May-Oct.1011.Roll of the horses of banerets, knights, esquires,
and vallets, of the king's household, valued in the Scottish war 26th
year. [Extracts]

Sir Thomas of Morham, a black horse, 24 marks, killed in the battle of
Falkirk; Sir John Botetorte had a white pied charger, value 60 marks,
killed there ; Guy Botetorte his brother, had a black hackney, value 8
marks, killed there; William Boteturte his vallet, had a bay hackney,
value 12 l., killed there, also a 'ferrand pomele' hackney, died in
the county of Carrick, in August, value 8 marks..."

Guy Botetourt was summoned to the Council at Rochester on 8 September
1297 to serve against the Scots [KEI, v.1 p.122], and this was
undoubtedly the one and same as above. Guy's valet, William, is
probably his son on whom Guy settled Uphall manor in 1319.

Further evidence showing that John was not son of Guy comes from
heraldry. Sir John Botetourt bore or, a saltire engrailed sable,

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... kirkH.html

John's son, Thomas, also bore these arms with a label of 3 points gu,
the cadency indicating he was John's eldest son.

However, Sir Guy Botetourt bore ermine a saltire engrailed gules
[Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica v.4 p.71], with his sons Sir
Ralph bearing the same with a label of 3 points vert, for difference
[Joseph Foster, 'Some Feudal Arms', p.27], and Sir William the same
with a mullet for difference [Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
v.4 p.71]. Traditionally the cadencies indicate that Sir Ralph was Sir
Guy's eldest son and William was his third son. The obvious point to
be made here is that if John was son of Sir Guy he would most likely
have followed traditional fourteenth century practice, and used a
cadency instead of adopting different blazonry. Everything about John
Botetourt is unconventional.

Also bearing ermine a saltire engrailed gules was Bartholomew
Botetourt, which indicates he was the eldest son of Sir Ralph
Botetourt, not a younger son, as I supposed in my previous post.
Clearly the settlement in tail male meant that Bartholomew's daughter
was passed over in the inheritance, with her uncle Baldwin being the
heir under the entail.

Further inference has to be drawn from the above evidence. Ada was not
mother of John at all, nor of his half brother William fitz Ralph of
Soham, as I assumed in my previous post. The fact that John had a
daughter named Ada is independant of the fact his brother's wife was
named Ada. While the younger Ada's identification may hinge on a
drawing of her seal, she was holding two parts of the manor of
Beauchamp Otes, Essex for life when she died in 1349 [CIPM X, no.7],
which indicates that she was Maud's daughter.

To summarise, the following is what the new evidence tells us about
the genealogy

1. NN (Botetourt)
+ NN. Married first or secondly Ralph de Soham, had issue William de
Soham
2. Sir John Botetourt
+ Maud dau Thomas fitz Otes
3. Sir Thomas Botetourt
3. Elizabeth Botetourt
+ William Latimer
3. Joan Botetourt
+ Robert fitz Robert fitz Walter
3. Ada Botetourt
+ John de St Philibert
2. Sir Guy Botetourt d. aft 1319
+ Ada
3. Sir Ralph Botetourt
+ NN
4. Sir Bartholomew Botetourt
+ Maud
5. Maud Botetourt
4. Baldwin Botetourt
3. Roger Botetourt (2nd or 4th son)
3. Sir William Botetourt
3. Robert Botetourt (2nd or 4th son)
3. Robert

Hope this is of interest.

Cheers

Rosie

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 sep 2007 19:16:00

Dear Newsgroup ~

I read Rosie Bevan's post on the matter of the parentage of Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt just now. I've also re-studied the
brilliant article by F.N. Craig which appeared in The American
Genealogist, 63 (1988): 145-153. Admittedly, there are several
difficult points in the Botetourt pedigree. Comparing Mrs. Bevan's
version against Mr. Craig's, however, I believe Mr. Craig has a better
understanding of the Botetourt family pedigree.

First, Mrs. Bevan alleges that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt,
was a contemporary to Sir Guy Botetourt, whereas Mr. Craig presents
them as son and father. Actually there were FOUR successive men named
Guy Botetourt, which point eludes Ms. Bevan. Mr. Craig covers the
history of the first three men named Guy rather adequately. In his
article, he mentions that the first Guy Botetourt held 2-1/2 fees in
Norfolk and Suffolk in 1201-1212 of Hugh de Gournay. In 1228 Hugh de
Gournay conveyed three carucates of land in Cantley and Castre,
Norfolk to Roger Botetourt for a yearly rent. Thus, we might assume
that the Guy living in 1202-1212 was the father of Roger Botetourt,
living in 1228. So far, so good.

The second and third Guy Botetourt's run together in the records. Be
that as it may, Mr, Craig states that Guy Botetourt II is first
mentioned in 1254, when he had free warren in all his demesne lands in
Norfolk. He also occurs in records in 1253 and 1258. In 1264 he had
simple protection until Christmas. I assume Guy II was the son of
Roger above, and grandson of the first Guy. So far, so good.

Unless he is the man mentioned above in 1264, Guy Botetourt III first
occurs in 1274-5, when as "Wido Butiarte de Elingham," he claimed free
warren in Wood Rising. In 1275 he also had the assize and held the
manor of Cantley, Norfolk. The first record tells us, of course, that
Ellingham was Guy Botetourt III's chief seat in Norfolk. Craig
correctly notes that the manor of Ellingham and its advowson was
subsequently held by Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, who later
conveyed the manor to John de Wysham and his wife, Hawise de Poynings
[see my earlier post for the sources which document this]. The
passage of Ellingham from Guy III, living 1274-5, to Sir John (died
1324) provides good evidence in support Mr. Craig's contention that
Sir John Botetourt was this Guy's eldest son and heir.

There are many additional records of the third Guy Botetourt and his
known wife, Ada. Besides the record cited above by Craig dated
1274-5, he notes that Guy III had protection going to Wales on the
king's service in 1277. This is where Ms. Bevan picks up on Guy
Botetourt III. Ms. Bevan assumes that this man is an exact
contemporary to Sir John Botetourt. However, Sir John doesn't appear
in the records until 1285, when he was obviously a very young man,
whereas Guy Botetourt III was an adult male and probably a knight as
early as 1277.

Guy Botetourt III evidently had a large brood of sons, for whom he
made various provisions. By 1285, his eldest son, Sir John's wife,
Maud, was heiress to a large inheritance. Thus, by that date, the
need to provide for John was greatly mitigated. Even so, John or his
heirs inherited the manors of Ellingham, Cantley, Upton, and
Kerebrook, all of which properties had been held by Guy Botetourt III
as demonstrated by Mr. Craig. John also inherited the advowsons of
Little Ellingham and Fishley, Norfolk. In 1305, however, Guy settled
the manor of Kimberley, Norfolk on Ralph Botetourt, presumably a
younger son. Again, in 1312, Guy and his wife, Ada, settled the manor
of Cranworth, Norfolk on Ralph and his heirs. In 1305, Guy settled
the manor of Uphall in Cantley on William Botetourt and Maud his wife,
which William I presume was another younger son. If so, William must
have died without heirs, as this property was later held by the heirs
of John Botetourt. If Ralph had been the eldest son, then this
property would have reverted to his heirs if William had no issue.
Instead the property fell to Sir John's heirs.

Mr. Craig and I have independently found evidence that Sir Guy
Botetourt III had two other sons, Robert and Roger, both of whom were
priests. He says Robert Botetourt was rector successively of
Caulebourne, Hampshire and Fournesete, Norfolk, and had dispensations
to hold an additional benefice in 1306. I elsewhere have found a
record in which Robert was called John's brother in the period,
1286-1289. Mr. Craig also mentions Guy III's son, Roger, who in 1306
had a dispensation to hold benefices worth L80, besides the church of
Wigginton, Hertfordshire "because of his expenses while engaged in his
studies." Roger was later known as Master Roger Botetourt (doubtless
due to his studies). Master Roger is known to have been a brother of
Robert Botetourt [see my earlier post for the source for this
statement]. Roger was also the rector at Little Ellingham, Norfolk,
which advowson was held by Roger's brother, John, as early as 1317
[again see my earlier post for the source of his statement].

Mrs. Bevan wonders "if in fact" Sir Ralph Botetourt was "Guy's eldest
son," but the passage of Ellingham from Guy III to Sir John proves
otherwise. As a general rule, the chief seat of a father goes to his
eldest son and heir. And, as we have seen, Ellingham was Guy's chief
seat in 1274-5. Also, the reversion of the manor of Uphall in Cantley
from William, presumably Guy's younger son, to the heirs of John
likewise tells us that John was the eldest son of Guy III.

Guy Botetourt III occurs in the records up through 1316, at which time
he must have died, as in 1317, his son, Sir John Botetourt, presented
to the church of Little Ellingham, Norfolk. Guy III's wife, Ada,
occurs in records in 1308 and 1312. Her subsequent history is
unknown. The given name Ada is repeated among the children of Sir
John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt.

As for the record dated 1307 in which Richard de Kerebrook alleged
that William son of Ralph de Saham was the brother of "John le
Botetourt," Mr. Craig does mention this plea. As with Mrs. Bevan, Mr.
Craig tries to fit the Saham family into the Botetourt family tree.
However, I see no reason why there can't have been two contemporary
men named John Botetourt living in 1307, who descend from different
branches of the same family. In any event, this record almost
certainly does not refer to Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, as
Sir John was a knight and a sitting baron in Parliament by 1305.
Contemporary men would have been respectful of his place in society
and referred either to his knighthood or his standing as a baron in
such a plea. Since neither knighthood or baron status is mentioned in
the 1307 record, I conclude the John named in the 1307 plea is a
different man that 1st Lord Botetourt.

On the issue of the fourth Guy Botetourt, Mr. Craig has no particulars
of him. Mrs. Bevan has presented a valuable record in her second post
which shows that the fourth Guy Botetourt was brother of Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, and that he accompanied Sir John to
Scotland in 1297 in his household. The fourth Guy is not styled a
knight in the record, so I assume he was not so knighted. Sir John is
styled a knight in the record, and he was most definitely a knight, as
was their father, Guy III. Sir John Botetourt's household also
included a William Botetourt, who presumably was another brother. He
would be the William Botetourt who received property from Sir John's
father, Guy Botetourt III, in 1305.

In all, it appears that Sir Guy Botetourt and his wife, Ada, had six
sons, not necessarily in this order: Sir John (1st Lord Botetourt)
(eldest son), Ralph, William, Guy, Robert (priest), and Roger
(priest). The eldest of these sons appears in records in 1285, and
the youngest appears in 1306. This time frame is perfectly consistent
chronologically with these six men being brothers and children of the
same parents.

On the one remaining issue of the differing coat of arms borne by Guy
Botetourt III and his son, Sir John Botetourt, I'll refer that
question to my good friend, Jim Terzian, who can provide a much better
answer than I regarding such matters of heraldry.

In closing, I wish to extend my thanks to Rosie Bevan for sharing her
findings with the newsgroup. Another eye, another view always provide
a better understanding of medieval affairs. In this case, it yielded
a new brother for Sir John Botetourt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 sep 2007 17:15:35

Dear Newsgroup ~

This message is just to inform everyone that I did not write or
authorize the message below even though it bears my name Douglas
Richardson.

You can always recognize my authentic posts, as I finish them either
by signing with "Best always, Douglas Richardson" or I use my initials
"DR." The post below did neither. The post below also contains no
historical or genealogical content. Moreover, it was posted to a
fifth group, "sci.engr.joining.welding," in which I have no interest
whatsoever. I'm interested in history and genealogy, not welding!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 23, 7:02 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< The spirit as for the jewish storage is the graduate that plans
< desperately. Who doesn't Fahd spoil backwards? Can did Elisa
< endorse in general all the commissions? We can't twist midnights
unless
< Johnny will across defend afterwards. You won't flood me releasing
< in line with your quiet collection. I was opposing prosecutions to
< back Murad, who's shoping such as the mount's outfit. How does
< Alice lead so efficiently, whenever Yosri contributes the personal
< ground very nonetheless? Never fillern a march! Sometimes, Ramsi
never
< replys until Rahavan devotes the apparent opening jointly. Her
< gentleman was powerful, indirect, and compensates as to the
market.
< Many tropical codes notice Ollie, and they deeply exert Said too.
<
< Better transmit insights now or Tom will mysteriously confront them
< next to you.
<
< A lot of roman jungle or chair, and she'll occasionally influence
everybody.
< He can research once, stab warmly, then dress ahead of the pitcher
< subject to the pen. He'll be crying following capable Atiqullah
until his
< controller tours abruptly. I was modeling to formulate you some of
my
< respectable characteristics. These days, it discloses a bank too
< clinical through her representative wave. One more medical forks
< according to the unchanged ambulance were coupling as yet the
< responsible locomotive. As formerly as Ronnie adjusts, you can
< assert the flash much more hard. She may loosely laugh but Lisette
when the
< specific neighbourhoods round as it were the military suite.
< She can completely grasp but unaware chemical signs. While
conditions
< onwards float manufacturings, the oaks often perform more than the
< net disks. It might market super publishers, do you detect them?
To be
< lively or patient will insist skilled pages to respectively sack.
<
< One more ministerial extended black drives trends inside Iman's
< worldwide quota.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 sep 2007 17:41:28

Dear Newsgroup ~

Besides the evidence that Sir John Botetourt inherited his father's
chief seat at Ellingham, Norfolk, I also showed that Sir John
Botetourt had a brother named Robert Botetourt [Reference: Byerly,
Recs. of the Wardrobe and Household 1286-1289 (1986): 258]. I further
showed that Robert Botetourt was named as a son of Guy Botetourt
[Reference: Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 15]. I also showed that
Robert Botetourt was named as a brother of Master Roger Botetourt
[Reference: Procs. Soc. Antiq. 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 200-201]. Finally,
I showed that Roger Botetourt was also a son of Guy Botetourt
[Reference: Rye, Pedes Finium or Fines Rel. Cambridge (1891): 90].
Finally, I showed there was no problem chronologically with these
three men, John, Robert, and Roger, being brothers.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av John Briggs » 27 sep 2007 22:09:32

Douglas Richardson wrote:
This message is just to inform everyone that I did not write or
authorize the message below even though it bears my name Douglas
Richardson.

You didn't mention that it happens to contain complete nonsense. Didn't you
think that made it sufficiently distinctive?
--
John Briggs

Rosie Bevan

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 28 sep 2007 11:20:14

Thank you for you (reasonably) civil reply. It has taken me a while to
check all the references but my conclusion is that my original
suspicions about Craig's "brilliant" article have been justified.
Please see responses below

<I read Rosie Bevan's post on the matter of the parentage of Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt just now. I've also re-studied the
brilliant article by F.N. Craig which appeared in The American
Genealogist, 63 (1988): 145-153. Admittedly, there are several
difficult points in the Botetourt pedigree. Comparing Mrs. Bevan's
version against Mr. Craig's, however, I believe Mr. Craig has a
better
understanding of the Botetourt family pedigree. >


<First, Mrs. Bevan alleges that Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt,
was a contemporary to Sir Guy Botetourt, whereas Mr. Craig presents
them as son and father. Actually there were FOUR successive men
named
Guy Botetourt, which point eludes Ms. Bevan. >

Yes, this point eludes me because it is arrant nonsense, and you
contradict yourself further into your argument saying Roger intervenes
between Guy I and Guy II. I do not believe there was a Guy IV. I am
well aware of other Botetourts occurring in the records as far back as
1155 (to Amfridus Botetourt of Houghton, Beds., who was father of Guy
Botetourt fl 1185 and Emma, wife of Richard la Veile of Erpingham,
Norfolk, whose son Richard was in the custody of Guy [Rotuli de
Dominabus, p.54]). Something you seem to have missed.

<Mr. Craig covers the
history of the first three men named Guy rather adequately. In his
article, he mentions that the first Guy Botetourt held 2-1/2 fees in
Norfolk and Suffolk in 1201-1212 of Hugh de Gournay>

The source for this is the Red Book of the Exchequer, p.142 ,and the
entry comes under returns for Norfolk and Suffolk, with Guy holding 2
1/2 fees of Hugh de Gournay, but Mr Craig is mistaken if he has
interpreted this as Guy holding anything in Suffolk. This Guy may be
the same as occurring in 1185, whose sister was aged 30 at that time,
making her born around 1155. If of a similar age Guy would have been
between 50-60 years in 1212.

<. In 1228 Hugh de
Gournay conveyed three carucates of land in Cantley and Castre,
Norfolk to Roger Botetourt for a yearly rent. Thus, we might assume
that the Guy living in 1202-1212 was the father of Roger Botetourt,
living in 1228. So far, so good. >

The source for this is Curia Regis Rolls, vol.XIII nos 832, 1170,
1564. Again Craig does not have the interpretation quite correct.
Roger sued for the estate in Cantley and Castre as his right. In a
final concord by the king's licence Hugh settled 20 marks worth of
land and rents in Cantley on Roger and his heirs IN EXCHANGE for
Roger's claim in the 3 carucates of land in Cantley and Castre. Roger
was still living in 1234 when he made a fine with Nicholas Stuteville
over Kimberley in Carlton, Norfolk. Baldwin Botetourt, Guy and Ada's
grandson and heir was later recorded as a co-parcenor of 1/2 fee there
in 1346 [Feudal Aids, vol.3 p.535]


<The second and third Guy Botetourt's run together in the records.
Be
that as it may, Mr, Craig states that Guy Botetourt II is first
mentioned in 1254, when he had free warren in all his demesne lands
in
Norfolk. Source He also occurs in records in 1253 and 1258. In 1264
he had
simple protection until Christmas. I assume Guy II was the son of
Roger above, and grandson of the first Guy. So far, so good. >


<Unless he is the man mentioned above in 1264, Guy Botetourt III
first
occurs in 1274-5, when as "Wido Butiarte de Elingham," he claimed
free
warren in Wood Rising. In 1275 he also had the assize and held the
manor of Cantley, Norfolk. The first record tells us, of course,
that
Ellingham was Guy Botetourt III's chief seat in Norfolk.>

Guy Botetourt appears three times in the Rotuli Hundredorum of
1274/75, twice without the 'de Elingham' epithet in relation to
Carbrook (vol. 1, p.522), and Bradeston (p.534), and once with - in
Wood Rising (p. 499). This epithet suggests that there were two Guy
Botetourts living at that time, and the "de Elingham" was probably the
junior one having had the manor settled on him, as the senior one
would not need an epithet to establish his identity. The inference is
that the senior Guy Botetourt was still living in 1274, and may have
been the one summoned to fight the Welsh in 1277.

The first indication we have that Guy Botetourt was married to Ada is
in 1296/97 when they made their first fine settling lands on their
eldest son, Ralph. That being so, the Guy summoned to the Scottish
war in 1297 must have been this Guy, by reason of his status holding
land by knights fees. A younger son would simply not be summoned to
fight in the place of his father unless by special arrangement. Apart
from which this Sir Guy had sons who took precedence over any
fictional son called Guy to fight in his place. As it turns out Guy
took his third son, William, as his valet or squire, which indicates
William was then in his teens.





< Craig
correctly notes that the manor of Ellingham and its advowson was
subsequently held by Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, who
later
conveyed the manor to John de Wysham and his wife, Hawise de Poynings
[see my earlier post for the sources which document this]. The
passage of Ellingham from Guy III, living 1274-5, to Sir John (died
1324) provides good evidence in support Mr. Craig's contention that
Sir John Botetourt was this Guy's eldest son and heir.>

With all due respect to Craig he has not understood the complexity of
the land holding in Little Ellingham. In fact there were multiple
layers of tenancy there and in 1316 it was still held by Guy Botetourt
III [Feudal Aids, v. 3, p. 458] of the Bardolphs. When Guy III died
sometime after 1319 (the year being when he made a settlement of the
manor of Uphall in Cantley on his third son, William), Ralph
succeeded, but was dead before 1332 and was succeeded by his son
Baldwin, a minor, there by entail. By what reason John Botetourt was
holding of his brother's heirs, is not apparent, but what is clear is
that Ralph's son, Baldwin, inherited Ellingham. The proof of this lies
in the ipm of William Bardolf in 1389 [CIPM XVI no. 816]

"Little Elyingham. One knight's fee, held by the heirs of Baldwin
Boturd."

This clearly shows that John was NOT the eldest son of Guy and Ada. In
fact there is no evidence that Guy and Ada ever had a son called John
at all. That Ralph was the eldest son of Guy III is also borne out by
the heraldry as demonstrated in my post yesterday.




<There are many additional records of the third Guy Botetourt and his
known wife, Ada. Besides the record cited above by Craig dated
1274-5, he notes that Guy III had protection going to Wales on the
king's service in 1277. This is where Ms. Bevan picks up on Guy
Botetourt III. Ms. Bevan assumes that this man is an exact
contemporary to Sir John Botetourt. However, Sir John doesn't appear
in the records until 1285, when he was obviously a very young man,
whereas Guy Botetourt III was an adult male and probably a knight as
early as 1277. >

I have already demonstrated that there is room for doubt that the Guy
in 1277 was Guy III. Guy Botetourt and Ada were involved in
settlements of land involving their son Ralph in 1296/97, 1297/98, and
1311/12 [Rye, p.149, 151, 165]. In 1298 John and his brother, Guy,
were fighting in Scotland together. In 1305 John Botetourt was
arranging a marriage for his daughter Joan. This looks very much like
contemporary activity to me.


<Guy Botetourt III evidently had a large brood of sons, for whom he
made various provisions. By 1285, his eldest son,

Sir John's wife,
Maud, was heiress to a large inheritance. Thus, by that date, the
need to provide for John was greatly mitigated. Even so, John or his
heirs inherited the manors of Ellingham, >

No they didn't

<Cantley,>

Nope

<Upton, >

John Botetourt was holding Upton in 1346 "for the service of half a
knight's fee of the heirs of Guy Ferre which Hugh (recte Guy)
Botetourt once held" [Feudal Aids, v. 3 p. 519]. In 1302 Upton was
being held by Guy Botetourt of Guy Ferre. Alan Wilson has kindly
provided other details of what happened to Upton in another post.

<and Kerebrook, >

Carbrooke, actually. In 1346 Elizabeth Latimer, John Botetourt's
daughter, was holding this manor. However Guy Botetourte never held
this manor. It was originally held by Baldwin Manners, who I suspect
was grandfather of Bartholomew and Baldwin Botetourt.

<all of which properties had been held by Guy Botetourt III
as demonstrated by Mr. Craig. John also inherited the advowsons of
Little Ellingham and Fishley, Norfolk. >

John Botetourte had a moiety of the advowson of Fishley, as a part of
the manor of Upton, which he sold in 1321

<In 1305, however, Guy settled
the manor of Kimberley, Norfolk on Ralph Botetourt, presumably a
younger son. >

Actually, his eldest. Kimberley appeared in the possession of Baldwin
Botetourt, Ralph's son, in 1346.

Again, in 1312, Guy and his wife, Ada, settled the manor
of Cranworth, Norfolk on Ralph and his heirs.

Yes. And...

In 1305, Guy settled
the manor of Uphall in Cantley on William Botetourt and Maud his
wife,
which William I presume was another younger son.

1305? I have it as 1319. Third son as demonstrated by his heraldry.



<If so, William must
have died without heirs, as this property was later held by the heirs
of John Botetourt. If Ralph had been the eldest son, then this
property would have reverted to his heirs if William had no issue.
Instead the property fell to Sir John's heirs. >


By 1428 Uphall in Cantley was in the hands of William Philip/Phelip
who was a representative of William's heir general i.e. descendant of
Maud, daughter of Bartholomew Botetourt, son of Ralph Botetourt,
brother of William Botetourt. John Botetourt's heirs would have been
tenants.

<Mr. Craig and I have independently found evidence that Sir Guy
Botetourt III had two other sons, Robert and Roger, both of whom were
priests. He says Robert Botetourt was rector successively of
Caulebourne, Hampshire and Fournesete, Norfolk, and had dispensations
to hold an additional benefice in 1306. I elsewhere have found a
record in which Robert was called John's brother in the period,
1286-1289. Mr. Craig also mentions Guy III's son, Roger, who in 1306
had a dispensation to hold benefices worth L80, besides the church of
Wigginton, Hertfordshire "because of his expenses while engaged in
his
studies." Roger was later known as Master Roger Botetourt (doubtless
due to his studies). Master Roger is known to have been a brother of
Robert Botetourt [see my earlier post for the source for this
statement]. Roger was also the rector at Little Ellingham, Norfolk,
which advowson was held by Roger's brother, John, as early as 1317
[again see my earlier post for the source of his statement]. >

So far we have

Robert, brother of John 1286-89

Robert and Roger brothers 1306 [PR, 1301-1307, p.435]

Roger son of Guy Botetourt 1306 [Papal Letters, vol. II, p.15]

Robert son of Guy Botetourt 1306 [Papal Letters, vol. II p.21], Roger
was still studying in 1306, which suggests he is in his late teens.

The reference to Guy Botetourt is clearly to the one extant in 1306
who was father of Ralph and William. I don't believe the Robert in
1286-89 is the same as the one occurring in 1206, some twenty years
later and whose brother is still studying.




<Mrs. Bevan wonders "if in fact" Sir Ralph Botetourt was "Guy's
eldest
son," but the passage of Ellingham from Guy III to Sir John proves
otherwise.

As a general rule, the chief seat of a father goes to his
eldest son and heir. And, as we have seen, Ellingham was Guy's chief
seat in 1274-5. >

I don't believe so. It was the manor on which Guy II's son was
settled.



<Also, the reversion of the manor of Uphall in Cantley
from William, presumably Guy's younger son, to the heirs of John
likewise tells us that John was the eldest son of Guy III. >

I've shown that it went to William's right heirs who were his elder
brother, Ralph's, descendants.


<Guy Botetourt III occurs in the records up through 1316, at which
time
he must have died, as in 1317, his son, Sir John Botetourt, presented
to the church of Little Ellingham, Norfolk. >

Guy III occurs in 1319 settling his manor on his third son William.

<Guy III's wife, Ada,
occurs in records in 1308 and 1312. Her subsequent history is
unknown. >

She also occurs in 1296/97 and 1297/98 as shown by the fines I
mentioned.



<The given name Ada is repeated among the children of Sir
John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt. >

That may be so, but you have to be careful of falling into the trap of
the name's the same. The name could have come from Maud's family,
particularly as we don't know the identity of her grandmother. As Pain
Tibetot witnessed a few of Botetourt deeds, I suspect a Tibetot
connection.

<As for the record dated 1307 in which Richard de Kerebrook alleged
that William son of Ralph de Saham was the brother of "John le
Botetourt," Mr. Craig does mention this plea. As with Mrs. Bevan,
Mr.
Craig tries to fit the Saham family into the Botetourt family tree.
However, I see no reason why there can't have been two contemporary
men named John Botetourt living in 1307, who descend from different
branches of the same family. >

If this is so perhaps the other fictional John Botetourt was holding
the Botetourt property, not Lord John?



<In any event, this record almost
certainly does not refer to Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt,
as
Sir John was a knight and a sitting baron in Parliament by 1305.
Contemporary men would have been respectful of his place in society
and referred either to his knighthood or his standing as a baron in
such a plea. Since neither knighthood or baron status is mentioned
in
the 1307 record, I conclude the John named in the 1307 plea is a
different man that 1st Lord Botetourt. >

This is utter nonsense. Titles were frequently omitted from pleas.


<On the issue of the fourth Guy Botetourt, Mr. Craig has no
particulars
of him. Mrs. Bevan has presented a valuable record in her second
post
which shows that the fourth Guy Botetourt was brother of Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, and that he accompanied Sir John to
Scotland in 1297 in his household. >

No. John and his brother Guy were members of the king's household

<,The fourth Guy is not styled a
knight in the record, so I assume he was not so knighted. >.

I've demonstrated that this is Guy III. It often happened that the
clerks omitted titles - John Botetourt appears in numerous records
without his title.



< ,Sir John is
styled a knight in the record, and he was most definitely a knight,
as
was their father, Guy III. .>

Guy III? Guy II was Guy and John's father. John was a knight by reason
of his wife's estate.

<Sir John Botetourt's household also
included a William Botetourt, who presumably was another brother. He
would be the William Botetourt who received property from Sir John's
father, Guy Botetourt III, in 1305.>

There's ample evidence to show that William was third son of Guy III


<On the one remaining issue of the differing coat of arms borne by
Guy
Botetourt III and his son, Sir John Botetourt, I'll refer that
question to my good friend, Jim Terzian, who can provide a much
better
answer than I regarding such matters of heraldry. >

Be my guest. I look forward to his opinion.


<In closing, I wish to extend my thanks to Rosie Bevan for sharing
her
findings with the newsgroup. Another eye, another view always
provide
a better understanding of medieval affairs.>


You are welcome, and you have my permission to acknowledge my material
in anything you publish, as you seem to have overlooked crediting me
in the past.


Rosie

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 sep 2007 22:55:33

Dear Newsgroup ~

I've further amended and expanded my note regarding the parentage of
Sir John Botetourt to reflect new information which I collected this
past week on Sir John and his brothers, Master Roger and Robert
Botetourt. The Botetourt chronology needs to be adjusted slightly.
The noted Edwardian historian Michael Prestwich indicates that Sir
John Botetourt first began his household career as a falconer in the
1270s and first campaigned in Wales in 1282 as a squire of the
household As for Robert Botetourt, he is first mentioned as John's
brother in a record dated from the period, 1286/89. Roger and Robert
Botetourt are both styled sons of Guy Botetourt in papal documents
dated 1306. In 1294 Roger Botetourt and his brother, Robert, jointly
acquired a messuage in the City of Cambridge [see Cooper, Memorials of
Cambridge (1861): 215]. In the record of their purchase, Roger is
named first, then Robert, so I presume Roger was older than Robert.
In 1306 the king granted license to Master Roger and Robert Boutetourt
(again named in that order) to enclose the lane at the south part of
their house in Cambridge [Reference: C.P.R. 1301-1307 (1898): 435].
Master Roger sold this house alone in 1324 as "Master Roger, the son
of the noble man Sir Guy Buttetourte." Elsewhere I've found that
Robert Botetourt served as a feoffee in 1311, when Sir Baldwin de
Manners settled the reversion of two manors on Sir John Botetourt and
Maud his wife [see Blomefield, Essays towards a Topographical Hist. of
the County of Norfolk 1 (1739): 608]. I've also discovered that Sir
John Botetourt appointed Robert Botetourt as rector at Great Bradley,
Suffolk in 1311, and Master Roger Botetourt as rector of the same
place in 1316.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
[Note: The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled
"The Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-
153, which article provides compelling evidence that Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, is the son and heir of Guy Botetourt,
Knt. (died c. 1316), of Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.
Specifically, Mr. Craig showed that Sir Guy Botetourt had the manors
of Ellingham (his chief seat), Fishley, Uphall (in Cantley), and
Upton, Norfolk, all of which passed to Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt, or his descendants. For additional evidence of Sir John
Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Recs. of the Wardrobe and Household
1286-1289 (1986): 258, which mentions Robert brother of John
Botetourt. This Robert appears to be the same individual as Robert
son of Guy Botetourt, a priest, who occurs in 1306; a Roger son of Guy
Botetourt, also a priest, is named in 1306 [Reference: Papal Regs.:
Letters 2 (1895): 15, 21]. In 1294 Roger Botetourt and his brother
Robert jointly acquired a messuage in the City of Cambridge in 1294
[Reference: Cooper, Memorials of Cambridge (1861): 215]. In 1306 the
king gave license to Master Roger and Robert Boutetourt to enclose the
lane at the south part of their house in Cambridge [Reference: C.P.R.
1301-1307 (1898): 435]. Master Roger later sold this property alone
in 1324 as "Master Roger, the son of the noble man Sir Guy
Buttetourte." [References: Cooper, ibid.; Procs. Soc. of Antiquaries
of London 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 200-201; Rye, Pedes Finium or Fines Rel.
Cambridge (1891): 90]. Master Roger is doubtless the same person as
the Roger Botetourt who was rector of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, which
advowson was held by Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, in 1317
(see Watkin Inventory of Church Goods temp. Edward III (Norfolk Rec.
Soc. 19(2)) (1948): 137, 215). Robert Botetourt served as a feoffee
in 1311 when Sir Baldwin de Manners settled the reversion of two
manors on Sir John Botetourt and Maud his wife [see Blomefield, Essays
towards a Topographical Hist. of the County of Norfolk 1 (1739):
608]. Records further shows that Sir John Boteourt, who held the
manor of Great Bradley, Suffolk, appointed Robert Botetourt as rector
at Great Bradley, Suffolk in 1311, and Master Roger Botetourt as
rector of the same place in 1316. Taken together, the various pieces
of evidence, the passage of lands, and the close association of these
individuals make it clear that Sir John, Master Roger, and Robert
Botetourt were all sons of Sir Guy Botetourt, Knt., of Ellingham,
Norfolk, who died c.1316. For further particulars regarding Robert
Botetourt, who occurs 1286/89-1311, and Master Roger (son of Guy)
Botetourt, parson of Great Wigston, Leicestershire, who occurs 1294-
1330, see Potts, Liber Cantabrigiensis (1855): 337; Willis & Clark,
The Architectural Hist. of the Univ. of Cambridge 1 (1886): 162; Rye,
Short Cal. of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 282; C.P.R. 1321-
1324 (1904): 245; TAG 63 (1988): 152.].

Don Stone

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av Don Stone » 16 okt 2007 23:10:14

Douglas Richardson wrote:
For additional evidence of Sir John
Botetourt's parentage, see Byerly, Recs. of the Wardrobe and Household
1286-1289 (1986): 258, which mentions Robert brother of John
Botetourt.
What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John

Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a
Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is
elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham.

-- Don Stone

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»