Complete Peerage Additions/Correction: Bartholomew Bourchier

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Complete Peerage Additions/Correction: Bartholomew Bourchier

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 okt 2007 20:50:42

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 247 (sub Bourchier) includes an account of
Bartholomew Bourchier, 3rd Lord Bourchier, who died in 1409.
Regarding his second marriage, the following information is provided:

"He married 2ndly Idoine, widow of John Glevant, and formerly of
Edmund Brooksburn, and daughter of (----) Lovey."

No documentation whatsoever is provided for this marriage. Nor is
there any indication made whether or not Bartholomew Bourchier was
ever knighted. Complete Peerage does indicates that Bartholomew
Bourchier's second wife, Idoine Lovey, was the mother of his daughter
and heiress, Elizabeth Bourchier, who was born about 1399, which is
correct.

The record presented below shows that Sir Bartholomew Bourchier, Knt.,
married before 29 November 1397 Idoine, widow successively of John
Glenaunt (not Glevant) and Edmund Brokesbourne (he living 13 November
1395).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Helena Chew, ed., London Possessory Assizes: a Calendar
(1965), pp. 82-99, available online at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=64184:

207. [m.13] William Marschall, perpetual chaplain of the chantry at
the altar of St. Katherine in St. Mary Colchurch, complains that on
Thurs. 29 Nov. 1397 Bartholomew Bourcer, kt., and Idonea his wife,
Thomas Glenaunt, Godfrey Reynold, Nicholas Chetewoode, John Tye and
Robert Bradbury disseised him of 53s. 4d. rent in the par. of St.
Michael upon Cornhull. Bartholomew and Idonea make default. Thomas
Glenaunt says that the premises from which the rent issues comprise
two messuages and six shops, of which he holds two-thirds jointly with
his brother, William Glenaunt, in fee tail, under the will, produced
in court, of John Glenaunt; (fn. 8) and because William is not named
in the bill, and there is no receiver (perceptor) of the rent named
therein, he asks judgment concerning the same. As regards the
remaining third part Thomas and William say that Bartholomew Bourcer
and Idonea his wife hold it in right of Idonea, to whom it was devised
for life by John Glenaunt, her former husband, with reversion to them,
in fee tail; and that at the time of the devise it was not burdened
with the rent in question. They ask that, in default of Bartholomew
and Idonea, they may be admitted to defend their right. Thomas is
admitted by the court to answer concerning his half of the third part,
but as far as the remaining half is concerned it is adjudged that the
assize be taken by default etc. Thomas says that the half for which he
answers is outside the fee of the pl., who ought not to have his
assize unless he can show his title. The pl. cites the record of an
assize of novel disseisin brought by him on Sat. 13 Nov. 1395 against
Edmund Brokesbourne, then the husband of Idonea, who is now the wife
of Bartholomew Bourcer, William Rendre, John Tye, Nicholas Chytewode
and Godfrey Reynold, then tenants, in Idonea's right, of the aforesaid
messuages and shops, in respect of the rent of 53s. 4d. now in view,
whereby he was confirmed in his seisin of the same, and so remained
until disseised by the defs. named in the present bill. The def.
Thomas says that he is not required by law to answer to the matters
alleged by the pl. in support of his title and asks that the pl. be
precluded from the assize. The pl. says, as far as concerns the
twothirds of the messuages and shops which the def. Thomas claims to
hold jointly with his brother William in fee tail, that they are in
fact held by Bartholomew and Idonea in Idonea's right. The other
defs., by John Berbowe, say that on the day of the suing-out of the
bill, Thomas Glenaunt held twothirds of the two messuages and six
shops in view jointly with his brother William in fee tail, under the
will of John Glenaunt. They ask judgment concerning the bill because
no receiver (perceptor) of the rent in question is named therein. The
pl. answers that he is not required by law to answer the defs.' plea.
The assize comes by John de Thorp, John Mendham, Adam Smalstrete,
Thomas Hattefeld, Richard Storme, Thomas Aylemere, William Weston,
John Brodok, Richard Tutteford, William Self, Richard Corner and Ralph
Silkiston. The jurors find that as far as the two-thirds are
concerned, the def. Thomas holds jointly with his brother William by
devise of John Glenaunt as above alleged. It is therefore adjudged
that the pl. take nothing for his plaint and be in mercy. [m.13d.
Blank.]

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»